Skip to content

Deprecate OBO specific subset of FMA - #2849

Open
matentzn wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
fma-deprecate
Open

Deprecate OBO specific subset of FMA#2849
matentzn wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
fma-deprecate

Conversation

@matentzn

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

See #21 for discussion

@cthoyt

cthoyt commented Apr 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

woohoo! this is a great improvement!

@cthoyt

cthoyt commented Aug 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@matentzn let's merge this! there's clear communication in the issue the maintainers want it marked as inactive.

@jsstevenson

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

would someone (@matentzn ?) be willing to handle the merge conflict?

also, does the line about unsatisfiable classes need to be updated in light of #21 (comment) ?

@matentzn

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I dont dare to merge this anymore.. I am too far removed from OBO Operations these days..

@nataled?

@nataled

nataled commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I haven't followed any of this, so I don't know what "the line about unsatisfiable classes" refers to (it doesn't seem to be in the referenced comment), nor do I know what "the merge conflict" is. Does the latter refer to needing to update the branch?

@jsstevenson

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nataled

the line about unsatisfiable classes

the proposed change in this PR includes the addition of this line

Note that the current official FMA release has unsatisfiable classes. Please follow [this issue](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/21) to keep yourself up to date.

that's from february. in the linked thread, there's a response in may from a maintainer that suggests to me that this issue has been resolved: "We (Todd Detwiler and I) have now released FMA 5.1.0, which is satisfiable under EL reasoning, thanks to Todd’s work as detailed in earlier comments."

the merge conflict

addressed by @matentzn in 956aaa6

@nataled

nataled commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

So...do you just need a review?

@matentzn

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I think merging this is correct, but I am too out of touch with the discussion around it - what is needed is a simple sanity check that we have officially agreed that the OBO Maintained Subset of FMA should be deprecated, and that the text for the deprecated record is ok.

@nataled

nataled commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm even farther away from the discussion than you @matentzn as this is my first time seeing it. However, on the assumption that there is an agreement on this, I did review the text and found it satisfactory. I have to admit that your own hesitation as to whether or not the agreement is there makes me even more hesitant. Otherwise, I'd be okay with approving.

@matentzn

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

In this case can someone please get explicit consent from one of the FMA people or point to the comment that suggest it?

@cthoyt

cthoyt commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@brinkleyjf recently added an authoritative comment in linked thread (#21 (comment)), which is now at 11 years of discussion. I hope he can give some final comments on this PR as a maintainer of FMA and then this can be merged

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants