Open cthoyt opened 1 year ago
I emailed Terry about this on May 4, 2023
Just to note, that there is a bit of a steep priority issue here:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#is_a <- is precludes any kind of logical processing and should be fixed as a priority
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#starts_at <- aligning this with RO is necessary to facilitate interoperability with other stage ontologies
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#group_term This smells like a subset declaration gone wrong in EMAPA. So basically, someone wanted to declare a subset property (which is an annotation property) and ended up accidentally creating a class declaration. I guess the question is if these are even used?
For 3: good idea, I just checked and see these actually aren't used at all
There are several hash relationships in EMAPA (i.e., ones locally defined within the ontology but not using the designated URI prefix
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/EMAPA_
).This is a problem for interoperability as these are not well defined. This is also a problem for parsing since it's not clear how to incorporate these hash relationships into the EMAPA identifier space.
Some examples (non-exhaustive) I got when parsing EMAPA with
bioontologies
:The last one is particularly worrying since an "is a" relationship is well-defined in OBO world
To Do
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#is_a
,http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#starts_at
, andhttp://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#ends_at
probably map onto things in the relation ontology (this is already covered by #125)http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#Tmp_new_group
andhttp://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/emapa#group_term
aren't qualified with a namespace and are completely unused. These are removed in #128.