We have this page on the obo rendering, where we have tried to make this as transparent as possible, but always room for improvement:
http://obofoundry.org/ontology/ncbitaxon
I think we at least need to make clear on this page that there is a separate bioportal/UMLS rendering. And we should document differences in content, PURLs, and release cycle.
We also need to inject metadata into the header that links to this page. Someone landing here:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ncbitaxon
is none the wiser that they are looking at a specific OBO rendition
I like how on the bioportal page it's (more or less) clear that this comes from UMLS
http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/NCBITAXON
However, there is a lot that is undocumented on both sides. For example, Bioportal/UMLS excludes non-organismal metagenome entries, excludes the fake 'root' class; OBO has a faithful rendering of every NCBI taxonomy ID. There are pros and cons of both approaches.
We have this page on the obo rendering, where we have tried to make this as transparent as possible, but always room for improvement:
http://obofoundry.org/ontology/ncbitaxon
I think we at least need to make clear on this page that there is a separate bioportal/UMLS rendering. And we should document differences in content, PURLs, and release cycle.
We also need to inject metadata into the header that links to this page. Someone landing here:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ncbitaxon
is none the wiser that they are looking at a specific OBO rendition
I like how on the bioportal page it's (more or less) clear that this comes from UMLS
http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/NCBITAXON
However, there is a lot that is undocumented on both sides. For example, Bioportal/UMLS excludes non-organismal metagenome entries, excludes the fake 'root' class; OBO has a faithful rendering of every NCBI taxonomy ID. There are pros and cons of both approaches.