Update DevelopmentGuidelines.md

Author: nataled

docs/DevelopmentGuidelines.md

@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ title: Ontology Project Management Guidelines
 THE FOLLOWING ARE FOR THE OTHER PAGE, KEPT HERE PENDING FINALIZATION
 
 technical:
-- Standardizing how imported ontologies are noted [#424](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/424)
 - Use standard synonym types [#2450](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2450)
 - Modeling metaclasses [#2454](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2454)
 - Ontology merging metadata [#1548](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/1548)
@@ -49,8 +48,25 @@ communication:
 - domain metadata tag [#2779](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2779)
 
 
-
-
+Follow-up on guidelines for imports: During the previous discussion, it came to light that some ontologies--when importing from a ‘third party’ ontology--filter out definitions and logical axioms in order to reduce the possibility of misalignment due to out of sync updates.
+Q: The newly-accepted guideline recommends against importing terms from a third party ontology anyway, but should we add that filtering note for cases when it is done?
+Q: What about when importing from the original source ontology? Principle 1 for term import says to “include any annotations for term or definition editors from the original ontology”. Should that be revisited?
+James: There’s nothing special about definitions – any annotation or axiom could get out of sync, and any could be important to someone. Recommend against stripping this recommendation.
+CONCLUSION: keep all information.
+imports: recommend that imported terms be tagged with the ontology from which they were *directly* imported? (no issue)
+Terms can be imported from the ‘source’ ontology or a third party ontology; this recommendation would provide useful tracking information should things go wrong.
+P1 says  ‘imported from’ (IAO:0000412) should be used “to link back to the group (i.e. ontology) maintaining it”
+Which method (annotating the direct import source vs annotating the maintaining ontology) would provide the most benefit to end users? To term re-users?
+Q: Should we only recommend this tag when from a third party, or always?
+If using OntoFox, it will indicate the direct import. ROBOT does it *only when asked*
+James O: would not recommend using ‘imported from’ in guideline.
+CONCLUSION: leave out of guidelines
+ACTION (DN): make issue regarding P1 inclusion of ‘imported from’
+imports: standardize how imported ontologies are noted (#424)
+For individual terms there is ‘imported from’ (IAO:0000412), recommended as part of P1. (Note: the above discussion might change what is said there.)
+Q: regardless of how it could be indicated (for example, using a yet-to-be-minted metadata tag such as ‘imports’ or ‘has import’--not to be confused with the directive ‘owl:imports’), do we want to make a recommendation to this effect? The context is within an already-merged ontology (which would not have any import statements).
+James O: this consideration is very semweb-focused but might not be very useful
+CONCLUSION: Don’t bother with this.