OBO Foundry Dashboard compliance

[DitchingIt]

According to their newsletter, from January 2024, existing OBO member ontologies will be sorted and promoted/relegated on the Foundry Dashboard according to their level of compliance. Reviewing our current status, we have one critical error, one non-critical warning, and one information item:

Error

We are missing documentation recording our users. We should have no problem indicating new term requests and other engagements with issues by users outside our core (2nd bullet), and use of terms and IRIs on other ontologies (1st and 5th). Can someone offer to record the evidence where the automatic or human Dashboard reviewer will locate it? I have no idea what to do with this.

Warning

We have numerous missing definitions. We do now have a Definition Conventions Reference Sheet #122 which I believes meets the requirements of Foundry Principles 9. I am also beginning to write or rewrite a large swathe of definitions as part of what I'm calling the Ethology module #127. Alongside expected deprecation of the phenotype branch, I hope to make significant headway in the coming year regarding definitions.

Information

Not being a priority, I plan to tackle the problem of non-RO properties in NBO relations 'on the fly' alongside the redefinition initiative above. It may be that someone wants to go through and do a PR justifying removing/amending the 6 offenders but this is not critical.

Thanks @dosumis @matentzn @pmidford @aclark-binghamton-edu @jannahastings @obo-behavior/behavior-ontologies

[DitchingIt]

Contact

Incidentally, the contact details for the NBO are defunct. I am not averse to being listed as the contact but I will await active community agreement rather than do it by default.

[aclark-binghamton-edu]

@DitchingIt I am also not averse to your being the contact. I am not able to keep on top of the issues as you have done...and also am a potential user-worrier only about the ABO-relevant portions. BUT given the definitional issues, I will try to keep on wading in where I see a problem (or to agree). I have not done so recently and apologize.

[DitchingIt]

@aclark-binghamton-edu Thanks for your feedback. (No worries about #184: you may have seen that I plan to move forward with it now. I suggest that unless you want to revert the whole thing, you make new issues for specific items you'd like to modify, bearing in mind I have obliterated 'fitness'.) I am nearing completion of my rework of reproduction and will post it as an issue soon.

[DitchingIt]

See #124 for an explanation of why I am not following this up, but I will leave this issue open in case someone else wants to.