Issues around canonical ordering

[matentzn]

Partially adresses #283

• docs/ have been added/updated if necessary

• CHANGELOG.md has been updated.

• Applies canonical sort ordering to all examples files

• Downgrades the necessity of applying the canonical column order from MUST to SHOULD

• Documents clearly that built-in prefixes MUST NOT be redefined

[gouttegd]

Approve, but please note the remark about the SEMAPV prefix URL. The one given in the examples’ curie map differs from the one used in SEMAPV and the one registered on the bioregistry.

[matentzn]

• Requires a new sssom-py release @hrshdhgd (needed a sssom schema updated, which is needed by the sssom.context refresh which depends on sssom_Schema release... BRAIN TEASE). Can you keep an eye on this?

[hrshdhgd]

@matentzn , I noticed that the qc.yml workflow here is using odkfull:v1.4 docker image. I think if you update the sssom version in the image to the latest version, this should pass. Does this make sense?

[matentzn]

@matentzn , I noticed that the qc.yml workflow here is using odkfull:v1.4 docker image. I think if you update the sssom version in the image to the latest version, this should pass. Does this make sense?

Does it make sense, instead to add a pip install -U sssom to the action to ensure its always on the most up to date state?

[hrshdhgd]

Does it make sense, instead to add a pip install -U sssom to the action to ensure its always on the most up to date state?

I agree! That's the ideal scenario. If you mean the docker image has the most up-to-date version of sssom

[matentzn]

In this case, can you do it on this PR and see if it works?

[hrshdhgd]

But does the Docker image already have the latest version of sssom. I made a release just yesterday.

[matentzn]

@hrshdhgd feel free to merge, its fine!