Annotation 17May10: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Items for discussion== | ==Items for discussion== | ||
* Discuss Roadmap for Annotation Advocacy group (rama) | | * Discuss Roadmap for Annotation Advocacy group (rama) | | ||
* Evidence code ECO proposal- who should take the initiative to move this forward (Rama) | * Evidence code ECO proposal- who should take the initiative to move this forward (Rama) | ||
* Annotations from inter-ontology links-follow up with Chris/T/D (Rama) | * Annotations from inter-ontology links-follow up with Chris/T/D (Rama) |
Revision as of 10:18, 17 May 2010
Items for discussion
- Discuss Roadmap for Annotation Advocacy group (rama) |
- Evidence code ECO proposal- who should take the initiative to move this forward (Rama)
- Annotations from inter-ontology links-follow up with Chris/T/D (Rama)
- PAINT annotations (Emily)
- How are we progressing in terms of QC checks?
- GO:0005515
- there are other 'easy' ones - IEP for function
- Annotation to protein complexes: Thinking about this more, it occurred to me that the annnotation object (column 2) should NOT be the PC ID. Protein complexes should be handled like isoforms, and be put in column 17. Does that make sense?