Skip to content

Update SOP.md to add instructions regarding self-assessment #2929

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
nataled merged 1 commit into from
Jul 28, 2026
Merged

Update SOP.md to add instructions regarding self-assessment #2929

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion docs/SOP.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ New Ontology Requests SOP are fully documented [here](/roles/nor-manager).
The goal of this SOP is to (1) provide a list of items to be checked during manual review of a newly-registered ontology (and the criteria used to review each item); and (2) provide a clear set of rules governing how suggested changes are communicated to the ontology submitter. These are the responsibility of the designated NOR Reviewer. Note that the NOR Reviewer does not need to assist submitters in understanding the NOR process, nor pass the NOR Dashboard, nor assist submitters to make registry metadata and PURL pull requests. Those are the responsibility of the NOR Manager (see [roles overview](https://obofoundry.org/roles/overview)).

#### What to Review/Criteria Used
It is expected that a programmatic review using the Dashboard has already been done and the submitters have addressed any problems found. The purpose of the manual review is to check the ontology for issues that the Dashboard review does not cover. A sample of terms/axioms should be checked. In order for this review to be relatively quick (~ 2 hours), the NOR Reviewer is not expected to review all the terms/axioms.
It is expected that a programmatic review using the Dashboard has already been done and the submitters have addressed any problems found. The purpose of the manual review is to check the ontology for issues that the Dashboard review does not cover. In order for this review to be relatively quick (~ 2 hours), the NOR Reviewer is not expected to review all the terms/axioms.

The first step is to verify that the submitter has correctly and completely filled out the OBO Foundry Pre-registration Checklist. If not properly done, the reviewer should pause the review and inform the submitter that all checked items must be verified before the review will be continued. Repeat if necessary. Once this step is complete, continue the review.

Check the following and provide a brief summary in the tracker issue for the new ontology request (note that a brief version of this list--and expected answers--are given in the [Ontology Review Workflow](https://obofoundry.org/docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.html)). All items of feedback must be provided using GitHub checklist syntax (`- [ ] TODO`) in order to track how far along they are in being addressed. Addressable issues identified as part of the review should be added to the new ontology’s issue tracker.
1. Ontology scope. The new ontology must present use cases demonstrating its relevance to the life sciences. Was the ontology developed using expert input or trusted scientific sources representative of the consensus in its target domain of knowledge? If the ontology was developed for a very specific purpose or community, representation and consensus need not be broad; however, this scope should be clearly stated.
Expand Down