Feature Request - Tie part names to Uber-anatomy ontology

[Jegelewicz]

Issue Documentation is http://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/How-to-Use-Issues-in-Arctos.html

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Our part definitions are either from Wikipedia or unknown sources (made up by users). A nice part ontology exists at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/uberon It would be great if we could just use th ontology, but technically this requires more resources than we have available.

Describe what you're trying to accomplish
Standardize part definitions and stick to a good source as much as possible

Describe the solution you'd like
Review all current parts and replace definitions with those from the Uber-anatomy ontology, for part names where this cannot be done this might highlight part names that need cleaning or other work. The results can help @ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators clean up the rest. It could also provide a path for easier addition of new part names. If a name is in the ontology, there should be no issue with adding it. Any part name suggested that does not fit into the ontology should require greater scrutiny. NOTE - this would only apply to parts requested for biological collections

Describe alternatives you've considered
Keep doing what we are doing, which means people waiting for parts to be added to the code table or being confused about which part name to use.

Additional context
This came up due to #5186

Priority
Please assign a priority-label. Unprioritized issues gets sent into a black hole of despair.