search

information-artifact-ontology / ontology-metadata

OBO Metadata Ontology
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
19 stars 8 forks source link

Obsolete IAO:0000117 (term editor) in favour of dc:creator #76

Open matentzn opened 2 years ago

matentzn commented 2 years ago

In an attempt to standardise:

https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata/issues/60

StroemPhi commented 2 years ago

Would it be possible to use ROBOT and a SPARQL generate querry to change this in existing ontologies that are not using ODK? And if yes a short how to would be much appreciated ;)

zhengj2007 commented 2 years ago

I think the IAO:0000117 (term editor) may be different from dc:creator. See: https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/115.

The annotation is used to "(i) this would better reflect the fact that the definition editor is the person editing the definition, but also the label, example of usages etc (ii) this would still be inline with the purpose of that annotation property, which is indicating a point of contact/reference should any question about the term arise.".

So, the person who add the term in the OWL file may not be the 'term editor' of the term. I have added the terms in the ontology without adding my name as the 'term editor' before. Besides, some time the term was created by a group. We used the group like VEuPathDB in this field. In this case, I am not sure whether ORCID is available.

matentzn commented 2 years ago

@zhengj2007 I appreciate the subtle distinction you make here. It is my mission to break the isolation of OBO and integrate it with the wider world of FAIR semantics by adopting as much standard vocabulary from the outside as possible - even if it means that we lose some degree of discrimination.

The related issue is this one: https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata/issues/60

Lets continue the discussion there instead.

@StroemPhi We have plans for a command in ROBOT that will do this sort of standardisation: https://github.com/ontodev/robot/issues/901

cthoyt commented 2 years ago

I support Nico's assessment that a tiny loss of granularity would be worth the gains from standardizing.

As devil's advocate: are there practical use cases that would rely on this distinction that someone could point me to? If this isn't so obvious, then I think the discussion about the distinction isn't so relevant.