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

Principle #13 "Notification" : specify types of changes requiring notifications #2322

Closed
sabrinatoro opened this issue Mar 14, 2023 · 7 comments
Labels
attn: Editorial WG Issues pertinent to editorial activities, such as ontology reviews and principles principles Issues related to Foundry principles

Comments

@sabrinatoro
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for this new principle.
It would be helpful to specify the types of changes that require advance notifications as what might be "impactful" could be very subjective.
For example, term obsoletion and big classification rearrangements should definitely be announced in advance. However, one might argue that the creation of new terms or small classification changes is not.

This principle might affect the ontology editing workflow: for example, users ask for a new term to be added urgently, and a GitHub issue might be created and closed less than 7 days before a release. Also, many changes can happen during a workshop, also making the notification of changes less than 7 days before a release.

It would be therefore helpful to have more specifics about the type of changes that we (the obo foundry) agree should require advance notifications.

@nlharris nlharris added the principles Issues related to Foundry principles label Mar 16, 2023
@nlharris
Copy link
Contributor

See also: Principle #13 "Notification" - NEW PROPOSED PRINCIPLE #1715

@nataled nataled added attn: Editorial WG Issues pertinent to editorial activities, such as ontology reviews and principles attn: OFOC call Issue to discuss on fortnightly OBO Operations meeting labels Apr 17, 2023
@nataled
Copy link
Contributor

nataled commented Apr 17, 2023

My recollection of discussion of this principle is that it IS very subjective, and the guidelines were kept a bit vague to err on the side of flexibility (hence the clause "...and any other[types of change]s that are determined with stakeholder benefit in mind"). The major concern cited was that this can end up being a very heavy-weight principle for smaller ontologies. That being said, it is likely that we could come up with a minimum set of 'important' notifications.

@balhoff balhoff removed the attn: OFOC call Issue to discuss on fortnightly OBO Operations meeting label Jul 11, 2023
@balhoff
Copy link
Contributor

balhoff commented Jul 11, 2023

Discussed in OFOC call 2023-07-11: agreement that it would be useful to add examples to the principle page for the kinds of changes that it's useful to notify users about. Please add suggestions to this issue.

@balhoff balhoff added the attn: OFOC call Issue to discuss on fortnightly OBO Operations meeting label Jul 11, 2023
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor

matentzn commented Aug 8, 2023

The most important one is: planned obsoletions. This can help users to intervene if necessary. I would start with that and then add others if needed.

@matentzn matentzn removed the attn: OFOC call Issue to discuss on fortnightly OBO Operations meeting label Aug 9, 2023
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor

matentzn commented Aug 9, 2023

Removed the OFOC call label as no clear action items for the Ops call. At the last meeting, 13 people did not have any further opinion about this.

@nlharris
Copy link
Contributor

nlharris commented Sep 4, 2023

So what are the next steps here?

@nataled
Copy link
Contributor

nataled commented Sep 26, 2023

Done.

@nataled nataled closed this as completed Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
attn: Editorial WG Issues pertinent to editorial activities, such as ontology reviews and principles principles Issues related to Foundry principles
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants