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
Principle #4 versioning - automated validation #1016
Comments
If the version IRI does not follow the date system, it will get a warning. It is not an error. Additional versioning check: The new release should have a different version tag than the previous one. A released file should not be modified and not have a different version IRI. |
Checking if old IDs are dropped should be a separate principle. This principle should be about resolvable, dated versions- @cmungall |
Hi everyone, SWO has always used release numbers (e.g. 1.7) rather than release dates. As I update the versionInfo and versionIRI to be compliant with the next release, please can you confirm that maintaining these release numbers will not result in an error in the OBO Dashboard? Specifically, this test should pass for SWO if I update the versionIRI from (Apologies if this is the wrong ticket - please redirect me if so). Thanks! |
Good evening everyone - just a follow-up on my last question from a few months ago - how would retaining a version number rather than a version date affect how the dashboard implements http://obofoundry.org/principles/checks/fp_016, which seems to expect a date value? Thanks! |
Hey @allysonlister, sorry I missed this! According to our rules: http://www.obofoundry.org/principles/fp-004-versioning.html |
Clarification: the principle states that versions be either of date format (specifically YYYY-MM-DD) OR use version number (such as NN.n), but that the IRIs for each version be a dated PURL. Thus, this validation should actually check that there is a functioning versioned PURL. At the moment this isn't done; instead the check is for the version IRI in the ontology file. Ontologies using the major/minor system with an IRI based on that system will currently fail this check, even if they have a date-based PURL. |
Habit, mostly. Certainly something we could look at changing :-) Thanks! |
FP 4 - Versioning
Automated checks:
Mechanisms:
We can extract the version IRI from the ontology to ensure that it is there. If it is missing, this check fails. We can make sure the version IRI resolves (HTTP status < 400).
The principle recommends that versioning follows the date system, though it is not required. We can look for the pattern:
or
It is also recommended to have an
owl:versionInfo
tag, though this is only applicable to OWL files. Perhaps if this is missing, it should only be an info message.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: