-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
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
Adding Retinal Cell Types from RCL but relax to subclass #1727
Conversation
Here's a diff of how these changes impact the classified ontology (on -simple file):Ontology comparisonLeft
Right
Ontology importsOntology annotationsCL_0003001
|
@dosumis happy to roll back the complicated CP replacements, but I do feel a bit uncomfortable with it being in the def and not represented at all in logical axioms. That being said if its not a equiv, then even if definition, might make sense to remove, do let me know what you think. Thanks |
Why? Some things are hard to formalise & not everything needs to be queryable. For communicating to biologists (and future editors), well written text is critical and probably sufficient for many properties. For these neurons, example images might be even more useful. |
Wondering if something went wrong here. I expected to see the various clauses as separate subClassOf axioms that we could then prune back, but I only see asserted subClassOf between names classes in the diffs. I thought this was fixed in Robot (didn't we test this the other day?) - but perhaps not. |
not 100% sure what you mean by this? think relax did take all the equiv and make them subclass, just the complex ones got taken whole which is right no? |
Ignore me. I was looking at reasoned simple. Looks better in unreasoned. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Look into adding ON/OFF ganglion cell classes, classifying those with ON/OFF in labels & also adding some text in def (checking pubs of course).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Few small changes, but looks good overall.
Nice proofreading @patrick-lloyd-ray! |
error:
@anitacaron - could you help me check why please? I've checked and the label is present in the import file, but even so, I thought we do not actually check non native terms? |
In the SPARQL query, there's a filter to get only GO classes. This is an old validation before ODK. Should it be CL instead, @matentzn? |
100%, this is ancient! |
I'll create a PR to fix it. |
I think this is ready to go - please do give a thumbs up and I'll merge this in |
This PR contains terms added in #1713 but with the following:
keeping old PR as it has interesting implications on having equivalent classes