Closed gaurav closed 6 years ago
I think those are both good reasons not to merge right away, and there isn't an urgent need to do so until we start adding terms to the Phyloref Ontology in earnest. Maybe we should close this PR for now and revisit it at that time?
I think what you're trying to suggest is the following:
I don't necessarily feel the same way about (3) but am willing to buy into (1) and (2), so if this captures your argument, feel free to take the corresponding action (file issue, close this PR, convert ontology to latest OWL API).
Yup, that's what I meant! Closing this PR now; we can continue the discussion in #24 and re-open it when we're ready to build a proper release workflow.
This PR translates phyloref.owl into OWL Functional Syntax as phyloref.ofn. To prevent duplication, it also deletes the old phyloref.owl -- phyloref.ofn will become the definitive ontology, and consumers can recreate the RDF/XML file as needed.