Add case variant synonyms to Orphanet and ORDO

[cthoyt]

This is an attempt to reconcile Orphanet and ORDO, which have weirdly overlapping synonyms. It's still not clear if these should be merged into a single namespace, or reorganized in a different way

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ab3fd30) 40.82% compared to head (9339784) 40.82%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 9339784 differs from pull request most recent head 59ced11. Consider uploading reports for the commit 59ced11 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1003   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   40.82%   40.82%           
=======================================
  Files         138      138           
  Lines        7928     7928           
  Branches     1847     1847           
=======================================
  Hits         3237     3237           
  Misses       4489     4489           
  Partials      202      202           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[matentzn]

Wait, how will you now deal with the Orphanet identifiers and their uris?

[cthoyt]

@matentzn haven't figured this out yet, just seeing to what extent I can add case variant synonyms without breaking anything

[matentzn]

With this change, you wont validate any "normal" orpha codes, they don't have that "C"

[cthoyt]

This was on purpose. The goal of the bioregistry is to give a summary of all of the semantic spaces. Just because it turns out that Orphanet smashed two semantic spaces into the same URI format string, it doesn't mean we can't describe them as accurately as possible.

Like David said, Orphanet's ORDO vocabulary is for the properties. The rest is regular Orphanet

[matentzn]

Yes but like I noted, it make more practical sense to push them together instead of having two, else how will you be able to say that both have the same uri_prefix?

[matentzn]

So far I have not heard a clear argument why the separation is necessary. I have good reasons why it is not necessary. I can only think of a single reason, which is being able to redirect xrefs from browsers to separate destinations depending on whether they are properties or diseases. Can you point me to the issue that clearly explains that this is what you are trying to solve?