Open matentzn opened 3 years ago
Each such proposal must be accompanied by an implementation plan, plus name of an FTE to implement.
E.g. either
For this particular ticket, I was thinking maybe we can get away without aligning with OBO format for now, and accept that these rows will look a bit ugly in OBO format. The ontologies we checked are all over the place with using dc:date and oio:date_created, and I think we can harmonise without fixing the tools (in this case). We cannot do that in some other cases, like IAO:115 and some such, but I feel like with this one we could..
See also #52
Agree with @matentzn
also need to harmonize on range: string literal or xsd date
Uberon/CL call has given thumbs up for tech team to settle it.
if use dc - announce a date, clean up, and then after implement QC
See https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata/issues/52
If we decide to use dc:date, is it the date that the term created or last updated? Do we need two date APs, one for creation date and one for last updated date.
I dont think we should not derive an answer to @zhengj2007 question from current practice, but I would like to suggest to use dcterms:date for last updated and dcterms:created for creation date, see https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/
moved from https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/906