Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create unique names for entities #26

Open
cmungall opened this issue May 7, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Create unique names for entities #26

cmungall opened this issue May 7, 2019 · 3 comments
Labels
question questions or discussion items (comnsider splitting)

Comments

@cmungall
Copy link
Member

cmungall commented May 7, 2019

A long time ago I had a discussion with Michael about entity names. GAZ stood in contrast to everything else in OBO that had largely unique names.

He convinced me that it was fine in GAZ to have many entities in GAZ share the same name. However, it might be nice to create a unique obo foundry unique label for all entities.

An important note that will hopefully become stale soon. In previous versions of Protege, you get into massive trouble if your ontology has entities that share the same rdfs:label. I think this is fixed in 5.5 or 5.6 but haven't tested. This should probably be in the editor docs when we get them up

@ddooley
Copy link
Collaborator

ddooley commented May 7, 2019

I can say the duplicate name issue is fixed in Protege - Protege now provides term id alongside any duplicate labels for entities in the interface. Really helpful.

@cmungall
Copy link
Member Author

cmungall commented May 7, 2019 via email

@cmungall cmungall added the question questions or discussion items (comnsider splitting) label May 9, 2019
@lschriml
Copy link
Collaborator

lschriml commented Jun 6, 2019

Chris:
suggestion - create a property - non-unique label

  • low priority currently

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question questions or discussion items (comnsider splitting)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants