Darren A. Natale

@matentzn yes, that's correct (about the gatekeeper aspect), but obviously it wasn't done with full consideration of the impact on a principle by principle basis. Rather, the notion of using...

1) I like impact score. The main problem with it is how this is determined. Every assessment of re-use I've seen simply counts the imports, not actual use. That is,...

In general I also agree with Alan, except there are (I think) legitimate cases for an ontology to contain inter-ontology dbxrefs that are NOT a failing on the part of...

Further to my point, I just realized that in both of the cases I mentioned, the dbxrefs would be to ontologies with a different scope and of a different type....

My one concern, as always, is that some of the dashboard evaluations are imprecise/incomplete/inaccurate (the EWG is in the process of evaluating this). That is, an ontology could "pass" on...

A newly-submitted ontology should still have a version even if it doesn't have a Foundry PURL, and there should be a version IRI associated with it. I think it still...

I don't think that is correct. Consider the many (most) ontologies that are not collaborators in the Foundry. Those still must be downloadable from somewhere.

Okay, I see where we differ. Regarding 'resolve', we are indeed talking about the same thing. The difference has to do with the configuration file aspect. You are referring to...

If it can't be both, resolvability is paramount. Without it, there's no way to get the desired version of the ontology! In any case, though shortcuts have been taken here...

For the cited ontology it is easy to see why: There's no purl configuration YAML file (see list at https://github.com/OBOFoundry/purl.obolibrary.org/tree/master/config). For others, it is probably because the version IRIs weren't...