Definition parsing/presentation in OLS

[twhetzel]

Go to https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/efo/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebi.ac.uk%2Fefo%2FEFO_0000305

Two issues:

• in Protege, this term has two definitions. Which is selected for display?
• the definition that is displayed has an ampty [] displayed at the end, which is not displayed in Protege

[henrietteharmse]

I think the first question is to determine whether it should have 2 definitions. @zoependlington @paolaroncaglia What are your thoughts?

[zoependlington]

The two defs in Protege look like this (top is from EFO, bottom is from Mondo import):

In EFO, many terms that are mapped to Mondo have multiple definitions, one from original EFO and one from Mondo. Some terms in some ontologies may have more than two, which may get a little confusing. Ontobee, for example, only shows one (and it explains the empty []): http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/EFO?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebi.ac.uk%2Fefo%2FEFO_0000305

Is there any way to weight which definition gets chosen by OLS to be displayed? Is there any way to have a "show more" for any terms with more than one definition in OLS?

[matentzn]

My 2 cents: Even though it's not good practice to have two definitions, the situation occurs, and can, quite often be justified (definitions can, after all, be contextual: lay-person def version formal def). OLS should not make an attempt to disambiguate: All definitions should be shown, using axiom annotations such as database_cross_references as a way to give a hint of provenance. I would simply consider definitions as 1:n annotations on terms.