search

geneontology / obographs

Basic and Advanced OBO Graphs: specification and reference implementation
64 stars 12 forks source link

What is the canonical captialisation of OBO Graphs? #84

Open matentzn opened 2 years ago

matentzn commented 2 years ago
  1. OBO Graphs
  2. OBO-Graphs
  3. OBOGraphs
  4. OboGraphs
  5. obographs
  6. obo-graphs

Thank you.

matentzn commented 10 months ago

I would propose to rename this syntax and market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies.

Some ideas:

  1. 👍 : ontographs would be the least diversion from obographs.
  2. 🎉 : ontojex: Ontology JSON Exchange format
  3. 👀 : jexongraphs: JSON Exchange format for ontology graphs
  4. 👎 : I am against renaming it.

Do you have other ideas?

gouttegd commented 10 months ago

market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies

Shouldn’t that be done at the level of the OWL working group at the W3C?

Edit: Oops, just realised that 1) the working group is closed and 2) this was already raised on the WC’s list a few years ago but apparently went nowhere. Sorry for the noise.

matentzn commented 10 months ago

Surely not the OWL working group - this serialisation explicitly leaves OWL-land behind. But yes, eventually we should try and propose an official recommendation. W3C level will likely fail as they will as why it is not JSON-LD, For me personally, the effort is not wort it - its just a convenient serialisation of something (OWL) that has a well-defined standard.

This is not a huge priority for me now, but since we are doing some work on the spec, I thought I would propose it.

joeflack4 commented 10 months ago

I like (1) and (2). I actually lean slightly against pluralisation in the name.

cmungall commented 10 months ago

"market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies.". This is a bit strong. Clearly as the original blog post from 2016 states the data model is opinionated about what aspects warrant a convenient structure vs which should be lower level axioms. Those decisions won't work for everyone. But I do think they work for a very broad range of stakeholders (not just bio) and I do think they map to abstractions that are common in multiple ontology browsers etc

That caveat aside I am open to a name change