-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
RO:0012008 was added to March 2021 release but did not have a definition #436
Comments
I agree with @cthoyt. I think RO relations absolutely must have a proper definition - else it will be exceedingly easy to misuse them.. These are the ones ROBOT report flags up.
We can either try to make an effort to retrofit these definitions, or inject stubs - that way, be relations added will be flagged up as missing (and we can fail on missing definition). |
@matentzn this is another reason I'm a big fan of using ORCID ids (or related) for created_by -> then we could ping the original author for each |
We discussed at June 1 meeting, @matentzn will another issue about a more detailed form for new submissions which will require providing a definition for any new relations. |
I think it would be agreeable that all Typedef and Term stanzas should have a definition - I just noticed this one since there was a new release (and it did not get flagged as a blocker for release...)
Originally posted by @cthoyt in #435 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: