Open Hannah-Doerpholz opened 6 days ago
Is this something we SHOULD change back or MAY change back? Is there an advantage to one option?
It's a MAY. It really depends only on the time it takes to use the PO_RO_MS specific parser compared to the general one. I thought, since the obofoundry links are maybe a bit easier to parse that might take a little bit less time. It's completely optional though.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Recently you added new parsing for the purls that should work to create the right purls correctly.
Describe the solution you'd like The RO purls have been fixed, so the "standard" parser for these purls (obofoundry purls) should now work as well. You can see the full issue here: https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/799#issuecomment-2186558038