You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a follow-up to #1635, it's worth noting the Bioregistry is tracking conflicts between the OBO Foundry's license metadata (which is manually curated) and the OLS's license metadata (which I think is parsed from the ontology). There are several remaining conflicts to address, listed at https://biopragmatics.github.io/bioregistry/warnings/#license-conflicts.
You could also use the following Python code to generate the table
Great effort to look for conflicts here! I think two things are conflated here:
in OBO metadata the license has two fields, url and label. The first thing to check would be whether these two are in conflict - the current validator allows all sorts of variations on the label, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a CC-BY 3.0 label paired with a 4.0 URL. So this I would check first
OLS always uses OBO metadata directly. So there cant be any conflicts - the table you present here looks like it is comparing the OBO license.label property with the dc:license annotation in the ontology. Can you clarify where what information comes from? OLS uses the OBO metadata file directly!
As a follow-up to #1635, it's worth noting the Bioregistry is tracking conflicts between the OBO Foundry's license metadata (which is manually curated) and the OLS's license metadata (which I think is parsed from the ontology). There are several remaining conflicts to address, listed at https://biopragmatics.github.io/bioregistry/warnings/#license-conflicts.
You could also use the following Python code to generate the table
I'll include it here in addition to the one on the website
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: