Difference between revisions of "Plant Ontology Response to OBO Foundry Review"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Domain of ontology: Plant anatomy, morphology and growth and development and their association to plant genomics data for all plants. | Domain of ontology: Plant anatomy, morphology and growth and development and their association to plant genomics data for all plants. | ||
| − | |||
Our specific recommendations are contained in the report below. Thank you for participating in the OBO Foundry review process. | Our specific recommendations are contained in the report below. Thank you for participating in the OBO Foundry review process. | ||
| − | Summary of Review Findings | + | |
| + | '''Summary of Review Findings''' | ||
| + | |||
In general, we found that the Plant Ontology is a good ontology, largely following the principles as laid down by the Foundry. We have some specific recommendations for improvements but found no major significant shortfalls in the offering. The following table summarises the findings of this review on a per principle basis, and detailed discussion of each point follows. | In general, we found that the Plant Ontology is a good ontology, largely following the principles as laid down by the Foundry. We have some specific recommendations for improvements but found no major significant shortfalls in the offering. The following table summarises the findings of this review on a per principle basis, and detailed discussion of each point follows. | ||
Revision as of 23:10, 20 October 2013
The Plant Ontology underwent a rigorous review in 2013 and was accepted as a full member of the OBO Foundry
Review document: Media:PO_Review_August_2013.pdf
Domain of ontology: Plant anatomy, morphology and growth and development and their association to plant genomics data for all plants.
Our specific recommendations are contained in the report below. Thank you for participating in the OBO Foundry review process.
Summary of Review Findings
In general, we found that the Plant Ontology is a good ontology, largely following the principles as laid down by the Foundry. We have some specific recommendations for improvements but found no major significant shortfalls in the offering. The following table summarises the findings of this review on a per principle basis, and detailed discussion of each point follows.
| # | Principle | Comments | ||
| 1. | Open | Some improvement desirable | ||
| 2. | Common format | Pass | ||
| 3. | Foundry URIs | Pass | ||
| 4. | Versioning | Pass | ||
| 5. | Clearly delineated content | Some improvement desirable | ||
| 6. | Textual definitions | Some improvement desirable | ||
| 7. | Relations | Some improvement desirable | ||
| 8. | Documentation | Pass | ||
| 9. | Plurality of users | Pass | ||
| 10. | Collaboration | Pass | ||
| 11. | Single locus of authority | Pass | ||
| 12. | Naming conventions | Pass | ||
| 16. | Maintenance | Pass |
