improve versioning scheme of RXNO & MOP

[StroemPhi]

At the moment the versions of RXNO and MOP are declared in the ontology metadata using: <owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/mop/releases/2022-02-01/mop.owl"/> & <owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/rxno/releases/2021-12-16/rxno.owl"/> Unfortunately these IRIs are not resolvable as there are no releases other than the files in the root dir.

TODOs:

• switch to ODK setup with proper release artefacts in the long run
• think about manually making GitHub releases to resolve to or a release folder in the root dir
  • edit OBO registry YAML to make the versionIRIs resolvable
• add owl:versioninfo and maybe a comment/documentation to the recent release process

[StroemPhi]

@colinbatchelor if you were to make a release using the date for the release tag, I could make a PR updating the metadata YAML so that the verionIRI will resolve to this and future releases. Using the BSPO.yaml as blueprint. @matentzn would this be an ok interim solution until we find the time to switch to ODK?

[StroemPhi]

And @matentzn do I understand it correctly that since there is no rxno-edit.owl for edits (improvements) between releases, a new release woul dhave to be made whenever changes are merged into main?

[StroemPhi]

If my above assumtion is true, wrt to a proper transparent release process, it might be better to have another branch upstream (e.g. dev or testing) to which I could push contributions from our NFDI4Chem fork and thus bundle smaller issue based edits. This way @colinbatchelor could wait until a certain number of contributions have been made before merging the dev branch into main and then making a release. All edits made on the dev branch would then be the changes one could list in the release info, right? Or would it be better to have this "dev" be the main one in our fork, @matentzn? Sorry for such GH noob questons.

[matentzn]

I think at the very minimum there should be a

• rxno-edit.owl (file you do the day to day editing, no version iri)
• rxno.owl (released version with merged imports, associated with tags and containing a version iri)
• rxno-base.owl (rxno without imported terms)
• rxno.obo

You only run release as you see fit - merging to master does not mean you have to run a release. We usually run monthly or quarterly releases, and whenever we need to on demand..

[StroemPhi]

Thanks a lot @matentzn! There is no ODK workflow yet, so "run release" will mean doing this all manually atm. But this already helps me to propose this minimum in PRs to @colinbatchelor.