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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

check on incorporating EFO #87

Open
tgbugs opened this issue Dec 9, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

check on incorporating EFO #87

tgbugs opened this issue Dec 9, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor

tgbugs commented Dec 9, 2016

Especially the age standards. See #49
@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgbugs commented Oct 13, 2017

Following , we should also review which classes, if any, from ero we want to reincorporate.

@tgbugs tgbugs mentioned this issue Oct 13, 2017
Open
@tgbugs tgbugs mentioned this issue Jan 12, 2018
Open
@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgbugs commented May 23, 2018

EFO cannot be incorporated directly at the moment. There are many issues with its modelling even beyond those listed in EBISPOT/efo#167 EBISPOT/efo#166 and EBISPOT/efo#165. These include a fundamental issue with modelling against GO where processes in EFO are treated as functions instead of as processes causing significant issues. There are also a number of cases where a process has been made 'part of' a protocol, this can be partially addressed by using EFO's own has_about_it. There are also still references to classes from bfo1.1 so those would have to be converted over as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@tgbugs