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

Standardize GOC:cjm references to use ORCID #24694

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cthoyt
Copy link
Contributor

@cthoyt cthoyt commented Jan 12, 2023

As a follow-up to cthoyt/orcidio#5, this PR demonstrates updating the provenance in various places to use ORCID identifiers as a more actionable reference for @cmungall instead of GOC:cjm

As part of this PR, I also issued geneontology/go-site#1956, which adds orcid to the GO registry because the following code relies on the live deploy of this file for validation of xrefs:

# TODO: use json form of this file
# See also: https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/13837
# See also: https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/18870
GO.xrf_abbs: $(SRC)
wget http://snapshot.geneontology.org/metadata/db-xrefs.legacy -O $@.tmp && mv $@.tmp $@ && touch $@
$(SRC)-check: $(SRC) GO.xrf_abbs
$(PERLCHECK) --disable-isa-incomplete --xref-abbs GO.xrf_abbs $< > $@.tmp && mv $@.tmp $@

This PR demonstrates updating the provenance in various places to use ORCID identifiers as a more actionable reference for @cmungall instead of `GOC:cjm`
@cthoyt cthoyt changed the title Standardize GOC:cjm to use ORCID Standardize GOC:cjm references to use ORCID Jan 12, 2023
@cthoyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

cthoyt commented Mar 4, 2023

@kltm I think this is ready for review. It appears a CI command has failed due to some issue with it interacting with GitHub's API, so I'm not sure if it has any relevant feedback or not

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Mar 6, 2023

@cthoyt just wanted to note the reason why I have delayed merging this. There are a number of issues with the OBO format OWL translation which we're working on, including mapping CURIE values to actual IRI resources rather than strings (owlcs/owlapi#1072). As it stands, all these orcid CURIEs will become strings when parsed into OWL, thwarting interoperability with records in your ORCIDIO ontology. So I wanted to try to get those updates into OWLAPI and then roll this out for all GO contributors.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Mar 6, 2023

I think we should also shoot for cleanly clearing tests for any merge, regardless of reason. If a test cannot consistently run, it should be removed.

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Mar 6, 2023

Only the ontology_qc test is required for merge. The others are informational. The last one fails for PRs outside the org (probably something I can fix with better configuration).

@cthoyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

cthoyt commented Mar 6, 2023

Thanks for the note @balhoff. If there’s anything I can do to support you, please let me know.

@cthoyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

cthoyt commented Jul 5, 2023

@balhoff if I change the ORCID CURIEs to URIs (and resolve conflicts), can this get merged?

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Jul 5, 2023

@balhoff Would this have any consequences for the Noctua data flow and client expectations? If so, we'll want to take and changes slowly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants