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

Change dc:creator to dcterms:contributor #731

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jun 27, 2023
Merged

Conversation

wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@wdduncan wdduncan changed the title change dc:creator to dcterms:contributor 'has roost' change dc:creator to dcterms:contributor Jun 23, 2023
@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@matentzn @cthoyt @anitacaron the qc is failing b/c of non-conforming values for the created_by annotation.
E.g., here is a list produced after running make test.

FAIL Rule ../sparql/term-editor-uri-violation.sparql: 33 violation(s)
subject,orcid
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002207,has developmental precursor
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/valid_for_go_gp2term,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/valid_for_go_annotation_extension,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002020,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012002,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002021,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012012,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002023,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002019,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012004,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002026,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012001,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012005,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002029,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002017,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002015,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012006,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002018,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012003,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002022,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/valid_for_go_ontology,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012007,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012008,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002024,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002025,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002013,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012000,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012009,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002014,dos
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012010,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/valid_for_gocam,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0012011,pg
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002016,dos

@wdduncan wdduncan self-assigned this Jun 23, 2023
Copy link
Member

@balhoff balhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like some xsd:dateTime datatypes were lost. Also a bunch of xsd:strings, but that doesn't matter—was it on purpose?

How does this relate to 'has roost'? It seems like a general cleanup.

src/ontology/ro-edit.owl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/ontology/ro-edit.owl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/ontology/ro-edit.owl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@balhoff when I changed the annotation property I didn't specify the datatype. I assumed the datatype would carry over to the new annotation. My mistake :(

This PR originated from my oversight of merging NTR: has roost prior to the qc checks finishing :(

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

@wdduncan Mind if I commit directly to this PR to fix the remaining QC issues?

@gouttegd gouttegd mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2023
Fix two annotations that were broken as part of #672: a removed label
and an exact synonym that had been changed into another annotation.
Somehow in #672, some "created_by" annotations were reverted to their
"pre-ORCID" values, so we fix them again.
@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@gouttegd I don't mind at all!
Thanks!

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

Done and the CI checks now pass.

@cthoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

cthoyt commented Jun 26, 2023

Please please please do not merge this until the commit history on the main branch is fixed

@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

What needs to be fixed? I'm not following.

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

@cthoyt The point of this PR is precisely to fix the breakage that was introduced by the merging of #672.

I agree that a hard reset to cancel #672 would be cleaner, but not now that the merge has occurred on the public master branch. Hard resets are good on a local repository to cancel commits that have never been published, but once they have been pushed on a public repo, it’s too late. Rewriting history on a public branch is a bad idea.

@cthoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

cthoyt commented Jun 26, 2023

please see #732. @gouttegd either way, can you help remove all of the spurious diff in this PR? like tons of changes are totally irrelevant to the content update

I'm not sure I agree about rewriting history on a public branch. This only happened a day ago and I don't think that changing it will affect anyone who isn't already involved in PRs on this repo anyway

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

@cthoyt Those “spurious changes” are not irrelevant: they are here to fix the real spurious changes that were introduced in #672. Obviously, when you introduced a spurious change, the fix to it also looks like a spurious change.

Note that if you go the #732 route and reset the main branch to before #672 was merged, then this PR becomes irrelevant, so I don’t know why your last item in the description of #732 is to ”fix #731”.

(I am personally opposed to any form of history re-writing on a public repo. That being said, I don’t know what is the OBO policy on the matter – if even there is one –, so if nobody else has a problem with that, I won’t object too much. All I want is to fix the master branch so that I can then update and merge #709.)

@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

All I want is to fix the master branch so that I can then update and merge #709.

That is what is most important. Github purity is secondary to do this.

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

This only happened a day ago and I don't think that changing it will affect anyone who isn't already involved in PRs on this repo anyway

#672 was merged 3 days ago. Hard-resetting the master branch to before it was merged will affect anyone who has updated their local copy since then. That’s reason enough for not doing so, in my opinion.

@gouttegd gouttegd merged commit 5f05336 into master Jun 27, 2023
1 check passed
@wdduncan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for your help @balhoff and @gouttegd !

@wdduncan wdduncan deleted the fix-dc-creator-for-has-roost branch June 27, 2023 12:16
Comment on lines +43 to +49
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0000000))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0000003))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0000006))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0000007))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0001001))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0001010))
Declaration(Class(obo:CARO_0010000))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still, have to redo some changes! No CARO is imported anymore.

@anitacaron anitacaron changed the title 'has roost' change dc:creator to dcterms:contributor Change dc:creator to dcterms:contributor Jun 28, 2023
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.

6 participants