Accidental equivalent definitions

[matentzn]

The logical definitions for ENVO_01001479 and ENVO_01001784 are equivalent. To replicate the test (also useful for qc!)

robot reason -I http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/envo.owl --equivalent-classes-allowed asserted-only -o reason.owl

[pbuttigieg]

@matentzn many thanks - looking in to it

[cmungall]

The text definition of ENVO_01001784 compound astronomical body part is very different from the equivalence axiom. I recommend the equivalence axiom is removed

[matentzn]

Please, someone, prioritise this, it is causing me big problems in many parts of the OBO sphere:

• Add check for logical equivalence with robot reason --equivalent-classes-allowed asserted-only

[matentzn]

cc @kaiiam @wdduncan

[kaiiam]

@matentzn Their will be an ESIP semantic harmonization meeting wednesday this week where we'll be looking at #1172. I'll include fixing ENVO_01001784 (which @cmungall suggests to remove the EQ axiom) comparing against ENVO_01001479.

[kaiiam]

@matentzn see 86014b1 should fix this issue.

[wdduncan]

@kaiiam Thanks for fixing. It is hard for me to tell what the fix was just looking at the diff file though :(

[matentzn]

I agree!

[kaiiam]

Ya not sure why the commit is now showing the whole set of changes not just the one commit possible because it was merged? Regardless we changed the EQ axiom so they aren't duplicated anymore.

[matentzn]

ping @kaiiam @pbuttigieg I am introducing so many special pipelines for processing ENVO, would be great if we could priotise tighter release cycles :)

[kaiiam]

I agree ENVO is overdue for a release. Regarding making them more frequently I agree. At the moment, I think not having full SOP is holding us back. We should prioritize making that happen. I made most of an ENVO release SOP https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/wiki/Making-a-release but we never finished it we're missing the last step with a release artifact generating script to create the MD file with new terms etc.

I'm in the last stages of writing my dissertation at the moment so if anyone else @cmungall @pbuttigieg @wdduncan @ddooley @turbomam has time to do this now great if not I'll give it a shot once I have time again.

[matentzn]

I have 0 problems to do this, its more the socio-technical issues I am worried about. If you can decide among yourselves that "if it is on master, its ready for publication", I can just create releases all the time, every 2 months if needed. I just don't want to go through the debate of whether "some things need to be changed" before the release every time, if you know what I mean :P

[kaiiam]

Fair points @matentzn we're hoping to have an ENVO governance meeting Jun 6, 2022 15:00 UTC. I think making a decision about release cycles should be on the agenda.

[matentzn]

Consider a @pbuttigieg independent release process (not review process!) a top priority on that governance call! These ENVO format errors are really taking up too much of my time.

[kaiiam]

Sorry to hear that ENVO issues are eating up a lot of your time @matentzn. I think an independent release process that could be triggered automatically seems pretty reasonable.

[matentzn]

No problem at all :) Just want to make sure it will actually happen so we can push hotfixes whenever necessary like we do with other ontologies!