Re: [Obo-relations] RO ID Collisions

[Chris M. <cjm...@lb...>]

No idea. Issue with these ontologies? I don't think RO has ever reused 
these IDs in any release?

I had a look at the CLO files in their repo, but I don't see an obvious 
way to tell which release of RO was used. But the problem is there in 
release/clo_merged_2013-02-26.owl


On 23 Jan 2015, at 6:41, James A. Overton wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> While researching RO_0002000 'boundary of' and RO_0002002 'has 
> boundary' on OntoBee I discovered that their IRIs are being reused for 
> other terms in three ontologies. Does anyone know what's going on 
> here?
>
> James
>
>
> - Cell Line Ontology
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=CLO&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002000 
> 'capable of part of'
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=CLO&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002002 
> 'has function in part of'
> - Brucellosis Ontology
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=IDOBRU&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002000 
> 'capable of part of'
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=IDOBRU&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002002 
> 'has function in part of'
> - Drosophila gross anatomy
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=FBbt&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002000 
> 'capable of part of'
> - 
> http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=FBbt&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002002 
> 'has function in part of'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in 
> Ashburn.
> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely 
> compliant.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
> _______________________________________________
> Obo-relations mailing list
> Obo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-relations