Deprecate OBO specific subset of FMA

[matentzn]

See #21 for discussion

[cthoyt]

woohoo! this is a great improvement!

[cthoyt]

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

[jsstevenson]

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]

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

@nataled?

[nataled]

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]

@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]

So...do you just need a review?

[matentzn]

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]

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]

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

[cthoyt]

@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

[matentzn]

@Onard, @brinkleyjf - can you please review this PR and approve / give your opinion?

[brinkleyjf]

The current official version of the FMA is 5.1.0, which is satisfiable under EL reasoning, so I would delete the line (38) that says the current version of the FMA has unsatisfiable classes. See #21 (comment)

[matentzn]

The current official version of the FMA is 5.1.0, which is satisfiable under EL reasoning, so I would delete the line (38) that says the current version of the FMA has unsatisfiable classes. See #21 (comment)

Thanks @brinkleyjf - I removed that comment.

[matentzn]

@nataled can you do a quick editorial review - the contents are ok now.

[matentzn]

Thanks @nataled - if you could approve, than I can merge and a 11 year old issue can be closed.