Closed gaurav closed 6 years ago
Are we talking about (JSON) keys in a PHYX file, or properties in an ontology? It seems to me this should be in the former category.
You're right: we need this term to ensure that phylogenies are retained during the JSON-LD to RDF conversion for PHYX files, but they don't serve any value within the ontology itself. #26 will provide a better link between phyloreferences and phylogenies (via their Nodes). Should we close this term request?
Should we close this term request?
Perhaps so. I'll go ahead and close it.
Proposed term:
has_phylogeny
Definition: Indicates a phylogeny included in a PHYX Study (#14). Domain: PHYX Study (#14) Range: Tree (obo:CDAO_0000110
) See also: scratch ontology, PHYX contextCompetency questions:
We previously supported "phylogeny groups", which consisted of multiple phylogenies grouped together for some reason (such as because they were imported from a single file). However, it probably makes more sense for PHYX files to have a simple list of phylogenies, where phylogenies can be individually labeled to indicate different sources.