Inconsistent spelling of structure comment for sample storage container

[ramonawalls]

All of the older packages that include sample storage container (mixs:000755) use sample_store_cont as the structured comment, whereas the new farm packages (food-human foods, food-animal and animal feed, food-food production facility) use sample_stor_cont.

We should make them all sample_store_cont.

Need to reach out to the farm group before making this change.

[only1chunts]

I agree with @ramonawalls

Proposal

All instances of MIXSID:0000755 should use the structured comment name "sample_store_cont"

[mslarae13]

Hmm... sample storage container - sample_store_cont - mixs:000755 doesn't exist

What does exist: sample storage location - samp_store_loc - mixs:0000755

• https://genomicsstandardsconsortium.github.io/mixs/0000755/

sample storage device - samp_stor_device - mixs:0001228/

• https://genomicsstandardsconsortium.github.io/mixs/0001228/

@turbomam can you chime in here on what happened?

[lschriml]

Looking at MIxS 6.0 release and MIXS ID https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p5Ziciznkk9er99aPhc7ed8NDE0oUKw0rrBlEOYUtiA/edit?gid=0#gid=0 -- I confirm that mixs:0000755. is: sample storage location - samp_store_loc

in food packages: the short name is; samp_stor_loc --> needs to be updated to samp_store_loc

[mslarae13]

I looked in mixs.yaml and in the documentation samp_stor_loc is something @turbomam must have fixed when LinkML was implemented. Because all the food extensions have samp_store_loc now.

@turbomam could you take a second look and close this issue if you find the same result?

[turbomam]

I agree. There are 20 appearances of "- samp_store_loc" (indicating that samp_store_loc has been associated with 20 classes) and zero appearances of samp_stor_loc