James A. Overton

Ok, I can see how that would be useful for Ubergraph. We can create a new version of `cob-to-external.owl` for that. I'm way over budget on my COB/OBO hours right...

Duplicate of #2602, which I think was addressed by #2632.

We never, ever remove a term that we've published. Please add OBI:0001720 to the obsolete template.

Everything seems to be working except: 1. `COB_based_on` which violates `src/sparql/iri-violation.rq`, see https://github.com/OBOFoundry/COB/issues/280 2. `obi.obo` conversion, because of a problem in COB: ``` OBO STRUCTURE ERROR Ontology does not conform...

@sebastianduesing will have an updated version of this PR soon, so closing this one.

Yes, this is exactly the current process, and this PR is fine to merge as it is. As I was reviewing, I had more thoughts... When someone includes a reason...

Yes. I did not see a way to add any other message to users about the 'reason' field.

The FAQ links to a blog post by @cmungall: . That's about starting a new ontology project, and that material has been superseded by the [Ontology Development Kit](https://github.com/INCATools/ontology-development-kit). I agree...

We have a new page at http://obofoundry.org/docs/OntologyTools It still needs to be added to the menus.

I think that we should say that OBO Term IRIs MUST resolve, as proposed here. A strong argument in favour of this change is that it helps us conform to...