Open cmungall opened 1 year ago
Before obsoleting, we should put together a list of impacted ontologies.
Is there an easy way to address @wdduncan 's request? When I look in ontobee I see terms not used in ontologies, just loaded. Also, how would we know these are not used for annotations?
In GO we email some email list, and people who may be impacted by changes in the ontology can comment before the obsoletion/term changes take place. Does RO have a way to communicate with people using it?
The RO has_input hierarchy has some legacy that needs cleaned up
Note that GO is moving to exclusively using has_primary_input in BP as all GO biological processes are programmed objectives. But if someone wants to incorporate GO in a combined ontology or KG alongside Rhea axiomatization the participants of catalytic activities would use the weaker relation
original comments from @pgaudet, responses are mine
We should remove the direct/indirect distinction
propose obsoletion
yes
we can get rid of many of these when GO stops is-a overloading
yes, this relation predates the primary distinction
These should be made primary inputs, but we will have no need of these relations when we stop is-a overloading
same
it shouldn't be under development