Outstanding Action Items from 17th GOC Meeting, Cambridge UK

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

( Back to GO 18th Consortium Meeting Minutes Day 1)

Items In progress or marked as done are not re-listed here.

There is an action Item from the 18th GOC meeting Princeton, for all to comment on these.

10. NOT DONE. Action Item for John
Add a term creation date to the .obo file. It didn't get added to the feature request tracker so it was overlooked. Now added:
-> JDR added to tracker on plane on the way here. NOW DONE

Action item for AmiGO Working Group (from 4): The AmiGO Working Group will implement a strategy to incorporate and display the contents of the GO references. Request is on the AmiGO tracker (thanks Jane) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1667315&group_id=36855&atid=494390
-> Done in next release. Amelia. On the tracker still.
15. Action Item for GOA (from 1)
Talk to Reactome about getting non-TAS evidence. TAS is no longer considered a useful evidence code and will not be used in any consistency measures of reference genome annotation. Since part of the idea of the reference genomes is to provide a source of IEA annotations for other groups, we strongly encourage reference genome annotators to not use TAS, and instead use experimental evidence codes whenever possible. The GO documentation should also state this in a clear fashion. [annotation camp participants]
16. Action Item for Judy, Harold, Amelia, Eurie, John Day-Richter (from 3,4,5)
Resolve communication issues around obsoletes.
-> Midori to look into but probably done – tags applied to obsolete terms in OBO edit file.
17. NOT DONE (more discussion required) Action Item for Chris and Jane (Revisit 7)
Remove the word 'activity' from the molecular function terms, and consider renaming the molecular function ontology. [note that later on in the meeting after action item 73 notes state that more discussion on this proposal is needed]
-> Strike activity from the function terms? Some people very opposed. DH.
18. [In Progress] Action Item for Jen & Chris (from 8)
Assign priorities for contents changes needed to implement sensu plan. Discuss the different aspects of changes to our use of sensu, write documentation on this, and implement the new strategy. This change will then be announced to the community.

Comment: There is more discussion to be had on this and a slot has been assigned for this in the meeting.

-> Jen to update on sensu later in meeting. See action items under Taxon/Sensu.

21. Action Item for Eurie (Revisit 12)
No conclusion about how to distinguish large- vs small-scale experiments was reached. People are encouraged to keep thinking about this issue, which clearly needs more discussion.
-> To be discussed at this meeting.
28. Action item (Suzi, Tanya)
Continue developing [protein family-based annotation] tool.
-> Put aside for the moment. Need to revisit. EVOLVING
29. Action item (Midori and Rex)
Do it [i.e., new column in annotation files], add the column and document the formalism.

It's not at all clear why this has my name (and I don't remember); it seems more for the software group and annotators. [mah]

-> TO BE DISCUSSED. Column 16. Structured Notes Field AKA SLOTS ☺
31. Action Item (Jane)
Keep researching CARO integration.
-> Jane.
32. Action Item (AWG)
Explore whether this [Mary's graphs] would be a useful addition to AmiGO 2.0.
-> These will go in to 1.6. More discussion.
33. Action Item (AWG)
There should be more tracking of what users are doing in the next AmiGO; explore the options.
-> Adding dates to file done but nothing further happened.
35. Action Item (John & Jane)
Come up with a proposal for a history tracking tool, including timeframe and priority, and send out email.
-> ???
36. Action item (David, Jane)
Organize first training meeting.(postponed due to the amount happening at this meeting)
-> ???
37. Action Item (Nicole, Jane, John, Mark)
Create proposal to group for term submission software, including the “minimum standards for each term”.
-> JOHN not done – proposal considered.
38. NOT DONE! Action Item (AmiGO Working Group)
Change AmiGO to hide (by default) structured comments of certain types. Obsolete comments will not be shown. Structured comments that don’t belong will not be shown. Have option to hide comments. [different types of comment not specified so no action]
-> Need more specification/requirements. Amelia.
39. Action Item (Karen E.)
Send the information [microarray tool evaluation] to the group
-> Probably obsolete. Therefore Done?

Items 50-52 were all about the WITH field for the IPI code.

51. Action Item (Chris, Ben)
Work through any database implications.
-> There are none, we already have both | and , DONE (ben)
52. Action Item (User Advocacy)
Announce in newsletter, “what's new” section of GO site.
-> ???
60. Action Item (Evidence Code Working Group)
Develop a decision tree for choosing an evidence code. Present results at next consortium meeting. (large scale/small scale, reviewed/un-reviewed. Similarity/not-similarity etc).
61. Action Item (Rex)
Assign programmer to check integrity of WITH field for annotations.
63. Action Item (Evidence Code Working Group)
Send RCA code back to committee.
78. Action Item (User Advocacy)
Draft an official GO brochure.

( Back to GO 18th Consortium Meeting Minutes Day 1)