Change the order of topics.

[Chris-Evelo]

I would put Risk Assesment related things directly below the Toxicology heading, and the more technical "server related" things at the very end.

[egonw]

The current structuring is likely still based on what I added, which was pragmatically based on the content of the spreadsheet. It was not intended to remain like this.

If you ask me, the Glossary should not have such categories at all, but just be alphabetically. I would suggest to rename this ticket as "Decide how the glossary should be presented", which I don't we discussed yet.

[Chris-Evelo]

Can we add a topic annotation to every glossary term? That is actually one of the reasons I liked a spreadsheet. You could just add a column like that and sort based on that or just alphabetically depending on what you needed. Can we do something similar?

[egonw]

With SPARQL we can do anything. But topic annotation... should we not do ontological annotation first then? that would have my priority (along with good definitions, which most terms now lack)

[Chris-Evelo]

Well, I suppose many of these topics actually are ontology terms and we can mint new ones if needed. So that should be fine. I just want all project members to be able to see both a purely alphabetical list and a topic-organized one. I don't really care about the mechanism, as long as it is as simple as doing a column sort in a spreadsheet.

[egonw]

Can you elaborate on this use case? Why is the resorting important? How will people use it? There are solutions for this (think OLS, think BioPortal). Do you want to Task Force for work out this use case?

[Chris-Evelo]

OK. maybe I should not think for other people and we should ask them what they want. In the original spreadsheet, i thought the topic-wise organization was actually handy if I wanted to check for a specific toxicology, risk evaluation, method, cell type, project, or server-related topic without knowing what it was called beforehand. I would probably have used that myself. Like you wrote the default would still be alphabetical though. Sometimes I know what term I look for and not what topic category that belongs to. I am not sure how much work would be involved. So hard to say whether it is worth the effort. In the spreadsheet, it would have been solved by just moving the topics to a dedicated column and using that to sort by.

[egonw]

With SPARQL we can easily create spreadsheets for people. But I think much of what you want can just be done with Ctrl^F in the document, or not?

[Chris-Evelo]

That is why I added "without knowing what it was called" above, that is the reason you would not be able to use Ctrl^F. But yes, if we can automatically create a spreadsheet version too in an easy way, then I think some people will prefer that. But like I wrote we would need to ask them if I am the only one it is not with the hassle.