(From Mike's email on 2018.02.05)

It would be good to review vivo.owl, and applicationConfiguration.owl.  VIVO runs fine with these defined as they are — see the VIVO Ontology Lab in GitHub.

But moving the configuration assertions from VIVO to applicatonConfiguration does break some functionality that will need to be restored.  The application looks for the configuration assertions in the VIVO ontology and can’t find them.  This results in configuration information being ignored.  The configuration info in this case has to do with linkSuppression in the interface, editSuppression and deleteSuppression.  The application fails silently, providing access to these functions when they are configured to be suppressed.

I’ll take a look at fixing this in the application.  I think the ontology group should proceed as if the changes are fine, and the creation of applicationConfiguration.owl and the separation of domain (VIVO) and app (ApplicationConfiguration) is a very good thing.

I will also take a look at the extraction problem — how to have the vivo.owl assertions merged into source.owl and then extracted.  We started with robot and I think it can be made to work, now that we know what the target extraction should contain (vivo.owl).

Discussion items

See notes at

Action items

  • Brian Lowe will create a JIRA ticket and fix the issue with the application looking for the annotations in a specific namespace