Difference between revisions of "2016 Los Angeles GOC Meeting Agenda"

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
  
Modified protein binding: GO terms & annotations are very inconsistent.  
+
*Modified protein binding: GO terms & annotations are very inconsistent.  
*Recent github issues:   
+
**Recent github issues:   
 
  glycoprotein binding: https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12580#issuecomment-240782020
 
  glycoprotein binding: https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12580#issuecomment-240782020
 
  ubiquitinated protein binding https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12582#issuecomment-240452320
 
  ubiquitinated protein binding https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12582#issuecomment-240452320
 +
 +
*How are we going to handle ECO codes in Noctua. Currently there are only a limited number of codes that fall under 'used in manual assertion'. If we use codes that are not specific to the manual assertion part of the ontology, then they map to EXP. Are we going to request the entire set of codes that we think we might want to use or are we going to have an automated way to map to the correct code?
 +
 +
*Are we going to allow Noctua to make annotations to the root nodes of the ontology? This would be useful for contextual annotations that are to otherwise root nodes. However some groups block these kinds of annotations because in the past, these annotations were used to keep track of genes about which we had no information.
  
  

Revision as of 08:10, 15 September 2016


  • Modified protein binding: GO terms & annotations are very inconsistent.
    • Recent github issues:
glycoprotein binding: https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12580#issuecomment-240782020
ubiquitinated protein binding https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12582#issuecomment-240452320
  • How are we going to handle ECO codes in Noctua. Currently there are only a limited number of codes that fall under 'used in manual assertion'. If we use codes that are not specific to the manual assertion part of the ontology, then they map to EXP. Are we going to request the entire set of codes that we think we might want to use or are we going to have an automated way to map to the correct code?
  • Are we going to allow Noctua to make annotations to the root nodes of the ontology? This would be useful for contextual annotations that are to otherwise root nodes. However some groups block these kinds of annotations because in the past, these annotations were used to keep track of genes about which we had no information.