Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Additional license properties to warn on for principle 1 #8

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2020

Conversation

balhoff
Copy link
Contributor

@balhoff balhoff commented Feb 25, 2020

I added two additional properties that ontologies may be using for license info. This way we can warn about standardizing rather than stating the ontology doesn't have license info (see discussion in OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io#1019).

@balhoff
Copy link
Contributor Author

balhoff commented Feb 25, 2020

@beckyjackson I didn't actually run this code (not sure how to, sorry!). Would you be able to check it?

@jamesaoverton
Copy link
Member

Thanks @balhoff! @beckyjackson I think we should add "bad license predicate" to the list of fixes?

@beckyjackson
Copy link
Contributor

This seems to run fine so far, I just kicked off a few small builds with no issues. @balhoff do you know of any ontologies that use those other "bad license" properties? I want to test it on one of those to make sure it catches.

You can always run the code with:

make all

Or for a specific ontology (replace obi with whatever namespace you want):

make obi

@balhoff
Copy link
Contributor Author

balhoff commented Feb 25, 2020

CDAO is one.

@hlapp
Copy link

hlapp commented Mar 21, 2020

Any reason that using dcterms:rights is considered bad? (It is a superproperty of dcterms:license.)

@balhoff
Copy link
Contributor Author

balhoff commented Mar 21, 2020

I think we are just trying for consistency.

@wdduncan
Copy link
Member

wdduncan commented May 4, 2020

@balhoff Does this need to be merged? It has been open for a while?

@balhoff
Copy link
Contributor Author

balhoff commented May 4, 2020

@wdduncan I think it should be merged.

@jamesaoverton
Copy link
Member

Yes, it should just be merged. Sorry that I didn't just do that months ago. Go ahead @wdduncan

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants