Managing NBO and GO equivalent terms

[matentzn]

• Make a report of all the behaviours that have an equivalent GO behaviour
• Manual review of table
• Obsolete all NBO equivalents with a replaced by

@dosumis

[DitchingIt]

@matentzn was this achieved?

[matentzn]

It's no longer a goal pursued because GOs behaviour branch has a wonky future

[dosumis]

It may or may not have a wonky future - but IIRC, we have generally used GO terms over NBO in phenotype ontologies where available, because of historically better stability and support for GO and also the possibility to cross-reference with the very rich set of annotations available with the GO terms (I have my doubts that GO will be willing to throw all this annotation away).

So I think we still need the mapping and also need to factor this into our reports of usage in phenotype ontologies - what cases do we have of GO behaviour branch term usage in phenotype ontologies. Whihc of these terms map to or are in scope for NBO.

[dosumis]

Have re-opened, but might be better as a new ticket.

[DitchingIt]

GO may be deprecating or obsoleting a number of behavioural terms in the future. This issue may have turned itself inside out:

1. There may be a number of classes which GO could deprecate if NBO's equivalent were appropriate.
2. There may be a number of classes not in NBO which GO could 'pass on'.