Issue 49 in information-artifact-ontology: ontology metadata: tracking changes to which terms are mireoted, and why

[codesite...@google.com]

Status: New
Owner: alanruttenberg
Labels: Type-Term Priority-Medium

New issue 49 by alanruttenberg: ontology metadata: tracking changes to
which terms are mireoted, and why
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=49

If an ontology mireots a term and then decides not to, what should be said.
Obsoleting the
mireoted term is clearly wrong. Rather it is the use of the term in the
importing ontology that needs
to be recorded.

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #1 on issue 49 by mcourtot: ontology metadata: tracking changes to

which terms are mireoted, and why
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=49

As the mireoted term still exist in the source ontology, do you have an
example of
why we may want to record the fact that we stopped using it?
Is it a technical issue, as if IAO stops mireoting (e.g. from OBI) the end
user needs
to import OBI on its own?
Or is it to explain why we chose to not mireot anymore a term: in this case
the
reference the user made to the external term is probably still the one he
intended to
make, and I am not sure we need to record the change in the target ontology?