Add go-plus to OLS

[dosumis]

OLS currently loads go.owl rather than go-plus.owl. The latter has extended axiomatisation including axiomatisation that links GO classes to classes from other widely used ontologies such as CL, Uberon and ChEBI. I can see why you might want to keep the simpler version of GO on the site, but it would be great if you could add go-plus.owl too so that a wider community can explore and be made aware of inter-ontology links.

CC: @cmungall @mcourtot

[cmungall]

Should be done using central repository rather than diverging

See my comments here:
OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io#16 (comment)

We can tag editions in the yaml with use-in-proper-owl-aware-browser or something like that

But I think really we should back up and think more carefully about the optimal solution for OLS. The import modules satisfy a compromise of different requirements, including those that tend to keep them minimal (avoid bloated RDF/XML files with big diffs, big I/O penalty when loading without catalog etc). These requirements are not really stated in any one place. The requirements for OLS may be different. It can be confusing for people when they end up browsing within an import modules in a web ontology browser. It might be nice to see an overlay with the full ontology. Another option would be to swap the import module with the full ontology, but this may be problematic in some cases (e.g. different versions may not make sense).

[cmungall]

In this particular case, perhaps the solution is for the official go.owl to be fully axiomatized

[dosumis]

It can be confusing for people when they end up browsing within an import modules in a web ontology browser.

This is already an issue:

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/beta/ontologies/fbbt/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FGO_0007637

[mcourtot]

Who currently uses go-plus? [question from editors call]

[dosumis]

In this particular case, perhaps the solution is for the official go.owl to be fully axiomatized.

I think it is safer to keep go.owl to the subset of relations that we are happy are safe to use for grouping annotations via the graph.

[dosumis]

Who currently uses go-plus? [question from editors call]

Probably very few people, but I suspect that few people know about it. Perhaps many more would use it if they were able to explore it easily.

[simonjupp]

We can put it in if you want. As David said GO terms already appear in multiple ontologies so it might already be confusing. We can think about better ways of displaying this. We already map terms to their "local" or defining ontology. This is currently used for ranking search results to make sure GO is the top hit when you search for a GO term.