As I think this is a distinct case. There is an argument for pronto remaining strict wrt the spec, but the spec doesn't forbid dangling classes. The spec defines a profile called OBO Basic, that forbids dangling classes, https://owlcollab.github.io/oboformat/doc/obo-syntax.html#6.2
However, an ontology can be valid without conforming to OBO Basic
We want to push out Base modules, where dangling classes are the norm, it would be great if pronto/fastobo handles these.
I'm splitting this off from
159
As I think this is a distinct case. There is an argument for pronto remaining strict wrt the spec, but the spec doesn't forbid dangling classes. The spec defines a profile called OBO Basic, that forbids dangling classes, https://owlcollab.github.io/oboformat/doc/obo-syntax.html#6.2
However, an ontology can be valid without conforming to OBO Basic
We want to push out Base modules, where dangling classes are the norm, it would be great if pronto/fastobo handles these.
Originally posted by @cmungall in https://github.com/althonos/pronto/issues/159#issuecomment-1239810691