Hi Bill,
Interesting point.
I'm pretty certain the nature, granularity, and meaning of versioning will
differ between the TBox and the ABox - at least that's my sense of things and
the way we've been proceeding on BIRNLex. What I mean by that is I have a
pretty good sense of what an appropriate versioning policy is for the TBox.
In our work on BIRNLex - and even more so in the work the OBI group has been
doing, as well as work from the GO Consortium and the NCI Thesaurus - an
effort to define a set of AnnotationProperties to handle versioning in the
TBox is being assembled and put to use.
Can I point you back to a mail sent yesterday requesting more information
on how BIRNLex is handling term deprecation and is the date that a term is
deprecated critical versus the ontology release version in which it was
deprecated? Have you had a chance to peruse the policy developed (with
input from Gilberto) for MO? I'm curious to learn of similarities to
that for BIRNLex. WRT to OBI, I am not aware that the OBI group has
discussed term deprecation yet since this resource is still in the
development versus production phase.
Also the resources you mention above are in different ontology
representations, OWL vs OBO format. What work is the GO Consortium doing
towards this issue? I am not familiar with the ability to traverse the
graph to find replacement terms for deprecated terms in the OBO format
ontologies.
Thanks,
Trish
I'm not at all certain what versioning means in the ABox apart from the sort
of versioning one would apply to all identified resources such as that
provided via LSID, which as we all know here has its pros and cons.
