{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185/events","html_url":"https://github.com/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185","id":157924526,"number":185,"title":"Duplicates in numerical parts of EDAM IDs","user":{"login":"hmenager","id":1140736,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1140736?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager","html_url":"https://github.com/hmenager","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/hmenager/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/labels/bug","name":"bug","color":"fc2929"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/labels/discussion","name":"discussion","color":"d4c5f9"},{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-06-01T14:41:49Z","updated_at":"2016-06-01T18:13:39Z","closed_at":null,"body":"While adding next_id checks to edamxpathvalidator (see #173), I discovered that many numerical parts of EDAM ids have duplicates in other terms, meaning that the numeric part of the concept ID is used in more than one concept ID. No real collision, because there are never full ID collisions, but still... I'm not sure what we should do with such cases: ignore (because no full collision - but dirty), or rename concepts which is also bad if considering that IDs should be persistent?\r\nOpinions requested!"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/comments/223078807","html_url":"https://github.com/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185#issuecomment-223078807","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/edamontology/edamontology/issues/185","id":223078807,"user":{"login":"matuskalas","id":992660,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/992660?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas","html_url":"https://github.com/matuskalas","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/matuskalas/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-06-01T18:13:39Z","updated_at":"2016-06-01T18:13:39Z","body":"Oh, that's a major uncovering @hmenager! Except for the last pair, it looks like a result of a copy-&-paste mess-up.\r\n\r\nAs a first step, would you please perhaps add to the error report whether a concept is obsolete? Not necessary in the CI, but at least for right now? (if easy to do) By a random browse, I saw that many are deprecated, but not all. And the last pair is still \"alive\".\r\n\r\nFor the pairs where both are non-obsolete, we could perhaps deprecate one of them (the one supposedly less used), with a _replaced_by_ pointer to a new clean copy of it, with a new ID. Or some other hack to clean it up.\r\n\r\nI'm also adding another, related point to #173, to check _created_in_ and _obsolete_since_."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"matuskalas"}}