ncbitaxon
ncbitaxon copied to clipboard
obophenotype
Build for NCBITaxon
Taxon doesn't generally have definitions, and that's appropriate for most of the concepts in the database. However, the ranks could at least be defined, no? We would like to point...
The NCBI taxonomy database is a database, not an ontology. As such that automatic translation includes various things that are not ideal from an ontology modeling perspective If we were...
Prefix
Thank you for your ontologies, especially ncbislim.obo. It uses the prefix "NCBITaxon:". This does not conform to the standard for CURIEs, which should be lower case, and is not the...
Three taxonomic rank terms appear to have an extra `#` in their IRIs: 1. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon#_species_group 2. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon#_species_subgroup 3. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon#_taxonomic_rank All other taxonomic rank IRIs use the prefix `http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_`. Should the...
Carried from - #96. Should we use taxrank to indicate ranks. It's not clear if we can or should treat these as OMO/OIO subsets. This might be a time to...
Nico asked me to double check the content in https://github.com/obophenotype/ncbitaxon/pull/88#discussion_r1361906045 and I realized that the turtle was very difficult to read. This PR updates the way the turtle is output...
Currently there is a product that covers only the taxslim, containing these disjointness axioms: - `X DisjointWith Y` for all sibling taxa `X` and `Y` - `(in_taxon some X) DisjointWith...
In the Planteome project, we have found an issue since the NCBI top level term is called "root" and it conflicts with our PO term root (PO:0009005) in Protege, and...
E.g. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_743727 Even though our transform generally does not alter the source I think in this case we need to filter this