Closed shawntanzk closed 1 year ago
The definition should be corrected as well, so that it no longer refers to an anatomical structure.
I am happy to put this on the agenda for the next RO meeting. Can you please hold off merging until then?
I think this is good to merge, once Damien's comments are incorporated (this could even go in a separate PR)
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 7:28 AM Bill Duncan @.***> wrote:
I am happy to put this on the agenda for the next RO meeting. Can you please hold off merging until then?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/pull/659#issuecomment-1364043654, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOP6MF6MIK5NANL5EW3WOXAIDANCNFSM6AAAAAATHY26MA . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>
Damien's comments are incorporated
Already incorporated :)
I think this is good to merge
Alright, will merge, no need for taking up time in RO meeting then :) Thanks @cmungall
Change the range of RO to be anatomical entity instead Related to https://github.com/obophenotype/cell-ontology/issues/1782 (see CL ticket for reason) Thanks to @gouttegd & @bvarner-ebi