Charles Tapley Hoyt

@shawntanzk @matentzn some of these checks should be incorporated in the OBO Dashboard, seems like they can be automated and reduce curation burden

Bioregistry also keeps track of these now too

How would a user know to navigate to this page? Shouldn't this PR also remove the entire drop-down list from the navbar?

looks fine:

I wouldn't suggest putting much effort into supporting the ontologies that do not use [FP-001](https://obofoundry.org/principles/fp-001-open.html)-compliant open licenses. Perhaps an alternative would be to put a warning that says for each...

Bioregistry is pretty pedantic about this! I can be the dictator you always wanted! The only important thing in that context is whether an ontology mints its own identifiers or...

As a way to get around the issue of applying new, higher standards to old ontologies (many of which are still called "active" but will not be able/willing to make...

After #1969, it will be more simple to say that all ontologies added after some YYYY-MM-DD have to conform to new rules and review of this PR will be easier.

Would be nice to finish https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/1841 before admitting new ontologies - @sabrinatoro maybe you can be a bit proactive about this

This was merged without the existence of an OBO PURL configuration. Isn't this required? Why isn't there an automated test for this? does not exist -> https://github.com/OBOFoundry/purl.obolibrary.org/blob/master/config/vbo.yml