Add definitions to terms for neurons that lack them#2937
Add definitions to terms for neurons that lack them#2937
Conversation
gouttegd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No issues with the definitions, but CL:0000109 should not be purely removed from the ontology, it must be properly obsoleted instead.
| AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:label obo:CL_0000108 "cholinergic neuron") | ||
| EquivalentClasses(obo:CL_0000108 ObjectIntersectionOf(obo:CL_0000540 ObjectSomeValuesFrom(obo:RO_0002215 obo:GO_0014055))) | ||
|
|
||
| # Class: obo:CL_0000109 (adrenergic neuron) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is that term removed because it “should be a synonym of noradrenergic neuron” (as stated in this comment)?
Terms should never be entirely removed like that. They should be obsoleted instead – kept around, but clearly marked as obsolete with a owl:deprecated annotation.
|
|
||
|
|
||
| <!-- Generated by the OWL API (version 4.5.29) https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi --> | ||
| <!-- Generated by the OWL API (version 4.5.26.2023-07-17T20:34:13Z) https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Has this file been modified with Protégé?
This file is automatically generated from the mappings between CL and foreign ontologies. It should not be manually edited.
|
This PR has not seen any activity in the past month; if nobody comments or reviews it in the next week, the PR editor will be allowed to proceed with merging without explicit approval, should they wish to do so. |
|
#gogoeditdiff |
Here's a diff of how these changes impact the classified ontology (on -base file):Ontology comparisonLeft
Right
Ontology importsOntology annotationsCNS long range interneuron
|
Here's a diff of your edit file (unreasoned)Ontology comparisonLeft
Right
Ontology importsOntology annotationsCNS long range interneuron
|
|
This PR has not seen any activity in the past month; if nobody comments or reviews it in the next week, the PR editor will be allowed to proceed with merging without explicit approval, should they wish to do so. |
|
@matentzn should be able to fix PR by reverting commit 0d3d161 |
|
@KrishnaTO thank you for the analysis. I am not sure of anything related to this PR; It needs to many of my brain cells to define a path forward. @AvolaAmg Could you kindle redo the PR, taking into account the feedback by @gouttegd and explaining exactly what the PR is adding (the related issue is also too complex). |
Fixes #2342