reconsidering the usage of term tracker item

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

This comes from information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata#175

We discussed this in the last oeo-dev meeting:

• IAO proposal: tighten range of IAO:0000223 to URL
• In future, only URLs are allowed, not comments, strings etc

Ideas of solution

• think of a solution how we deal with that:
  • only link to issue or PR
  • add several term tracker items (issues/PRs) for discussion history
• Update IAO import once the changes are released
• apply solution to existing entities, i.e. write a script
• document in wiki

Workflow checklist

• I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[l-emele]

Other option: define our own term tracker item and replace IAO:0000223 with our own.

[stap-m]

Other option: define our own term tracker item and replace IAO:0000223 with our own.

Sure. Maybe we can even combine our own annotation and the proper usage of IAO:0000223. Topic for next dev meeting❗

Just as an example, this is how IAO document the devolopment history:

[stap-m]

From latest oeo-dev 79:

• discussion:
  • only URLs as range and no longer plain strings: this may be a lot of work - we have many URLs to add and thousands of term trackers
  • alternative: replace IAO:0000223 with editor notes or RDFS:comment
  • we could do more research before decision?
  • implementation could be done by @madbkr
  • having the history of issues is nice
• decision: create subannotation of "editor note" -> term tracker annotation

[l-emele]

First try for a definition of term tracker annotation: A term tracker annotation is an editor note used within the Open Energy Ontology to track the history of a term. It tracks for each change the related GitHub issue and pull request.

[l-emele]

@stap-m : Any thoughts about my proposal in the comment above?

[stap-m]

I like the proposal. I don't think we should restrict it to the usage within OEO, esp with respect to new energy ontologies.
What about:
A term tracker annotation is an editor note used to track the history of an entity. For each change, it records the related GitHub issue and pull request.

[l-emele]

Being open for other ontologies is a good idea. So I agree to your improved definition.

To move on I suggest the following approach:

1. One PR to introduce this new annotation property term tracker annotation first.
2. Then one PR per OEO file to replace all uses of term tracker item with term tracker annotation. This can probably be done using search & replace in in a text editor.

[stap-m]

Sounds good to me. I'll create a PR for the new annotation.

[l-emele]

Reopen: Not completely finished, see #1922 (comment)

[stap-m]

Reopen: Not completely finished, see #1922 (comment)

@madbkr please have a look again.

[l-emele]

I re-open this issue:

While using term tracker annotation in #1925 I noticed that Protégé does not show the annotation properly:

[stap-m]

Which class and module?
I cannot reproduce that:

[l-emele]

Oh, it is even weirder, the annotation appears twice, at least in oeo.omn:

[stap-m]

I don't have that either. Which branch?

[l-emele]

Branch feature-1873-licence-axioms of PR #1925.

It appears twice in if I look into the following files:

• oeo.omn
• oeo-physical-axioms.owl

In oeo-physical-axiom.owl it even shows:

Those two have the following IRIs:

• http://openenergy-platform.org/ontology/oeo/OEO_00020426
• http://openenergy-platform.org/ontology/oeo/oeo-physical-axioms/OEO_00020426

Looks like a bug in oeo-physical-axioms.owl. Maybe something with the namespaces?