Replaced dwc:basisOfRecord to basisOfRecord #143
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
That's what the publication says we should use. I think we previously had dwc: prefixes everywhere, but we didn't notice that this was still around for basisOfRecord until just now.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some parts of the code assumes that the basisOfRecord should be
dwc:basisOfRecord, but our publication says that it should bebasisOfRecord. This PR standardizes it to the form used in the publication.I think we previously had dwc: prefixes everywhere, but we didn't notice that this was still around for basisOfRecord until just now. I've removed some redundant variables from
owlterms.py(one of which had a dwc: prefix, which is how I found it). To get the tests to pass, I had to update the version number of Open Tree of Life nodes we used in one test.