Annotation 26Feb10: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Format of Ref.genome jamboree calls== | ==Format of Ref.genome jamboree calls== | ||
* the chair of discussions needs to ensure that SourceForge items are | |||
populated from the action items that come out of the discussion. Either | populated from the action items that come out of the discussion. Either | ||
the chair should do this directly, or ensure interested parties do this. | the chair should do this directly, or ensure interested parties do this. | ||
Pascale and I have agreed to follow up on the SLIT2/NIPBL discussions | Pascale and I have agreed to follow up on the SLIT2/NIPBL discussions | ||
* chairs need to provide/or nominate someone to provide/prepare a quick | |||
overview of the functions that the gene is thought to carry out - and see | overview of the functions that the gene is thought to carry out - and see | ||
if this aligns with the annotation set being displayed in GONUTs | if this aligns with the annotation set being displayed in GONUTs | ||
* any items that could be converted into QC items should be noted (e.g. | |||
taxon-specific checks, or co-annotation guidelines) | taxon-specific checks, or co-annotation guidelines) | ||
* annotation issues need to be forwarded to the annotation list (either by | |||
the chair, or nominated curator) | the chair, or nominated curator) | ||
* Pascale, could the PAINT folk have an early look at the annotation set | |||
generated, and summarize the transfers that they would propose making on | generated, and summarize the transfers that they would propose making on | ||
the generated set? As Daniel is currently creating a bulk annotation | the generated set? As Daniel is currently creating a bulk annotation | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
up-to-date RefGen annotation set from the jamboree - would this help you | up-to-date RefGen annotation set from the jamboree - would this help you | ||
and Kara? | and Kara? | ||
* I thought that having Anita on the call for SLIT2 was invaluable. It | |||
would be fantastic if we could have such experts at other calls - who | would be fantastic if we could have such experts at other calls - who | ||
could clarify some of the more complex issues curators had been having | could clarify some of the more complex issues curators had been having | ||
with certain papers/methods/terms. | with certain papers/methods/terms. | ||
* a GO ontology developer needs to attend the whole of the call. | |||
* all groups need to be willing to volunteer a curator to either take | |||
minutes or chair a discussion (i.e. it shouldn't always be Pascale or I). | minutes or chair a discussion (i.e. it shouldn't always be Pascale or I). | ||
Revision as of 12:47, 25 February 2010
Organizing the wiki pages
- annotation documentation
- annotation discussion working groups
- action items from emails, meetings, jamborees
Annotations based on Inter-ontology links
(Rama) Chris (and the ontology group) have generated several annotations/inferences based on inter-ontology links. Val has started commenting on (SF) some of these annotations. I think it is our responsibility to let groups know if this is a priority and if they shd be doing this now. http://cvsweb.geneontology.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/go/scratch/gaf-inference/
Format of Ref.genome jamboree calls
- the chair of discussions needs to ensure that SourceForge items are
populated from the action items that come out of the discussion. Either the chair should do this directly, or ensure interested parties do this. Pascale and I have agreed to follow up on the SLIT2/NIPBL discussions
- chairs need to provide/or nominate someone to provide/prepare a quick
overview of the functions that the gene is thought to carry out - and see if this aligns with the annotation set being displayed in GONUTs
- any items that could be converted into QC items should be noted (e.g.
taxon-specific checks, or co-annotation guidelines)
- annotation issues need to be forwarded to the annotation list (either by
the chair, or nominated curator)
- Pascale, could the PAINT folk have an early look at the annotation set
generated, and summarize the transfers that they would propose making on the generated set? As Daniel is currently creating a bulk annotation uploader that accepts GAF formatted files, perhaps we could ask if GONUTs could spit them out as well - so that PAINT could directly upload the most up-to-date RefGen annotation set from the jamboree - would this help you and Kara?
- I thought that having Anita on the call for SLIT2 was invaluable. It
would be fantastic if we could have such experts at other calls - who could clarify some of the more complex issues curators had been having with certain papers/methods/terms.
- a GO ontology developer needs to attend the whole of the call.
- all groups need to be willing to volunteer a curator to either take
minutes or chair a discussion (i.e. it shouldn't always be Pascale or I).
Perhaps these suggestions could be posted somewhere along with the current format of the calls - and we could invite other curators to make suggestions. Could you do this? I think that if we/other curators feel that there is value from these calls, we need to strongly encourage groups to actively participate and support these calls; even the current (sub-optimal) organization takes up a surprising amount of time - from suggesting targets to settting up calls, pestering for people to add annotations, requesting GONUTs features from Jim/Daniel. Perhaps we three could each take on the organisation of one jamboree a year? What are your thoughts?