Annotation Conf. Call, June 23, 2015: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " Category: Annotation Working Group =Agenda= ==June Consistency paper== http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23954377") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=Agenda= | =Agenda= | ||
==Ability to add comments to an annotation== | |||
We want to be able to capture why a particular experiment/result was not captured as an annotation and make this comment visible to the public. | |||
This issue came up during the April curation consistency discussion (mouse paper). I made a github ticket. | |||
https://github.com/ebi-uniprot/Protein2GO/issues/1 | |||
==obsolete relationships== | |||
There are some relationships that were obsoleted (mostly for use with col-16). Not sure how other groups are rehousing these annotations. Instead of a regular consistency exercise is it okay if we go through some of the papers and get your input on how to rehouse those col-16 data? | |||
==June Consistency paper== | ==June Consistency paper== | ||
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23954377 | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23954377 |
Revision as of 15:06, 19 June 2015
Agenda
Ability to add comments to an annotation
We want to be able to capture why a particular experiment/result was not captured as an annotation and make this comment visible to the public. This issue came up during the April curation consistency discussion (mouse paper). I made a github ticket. https://github.com/ebi-uniprot/Protein2GO/issues/1
obsolete relationships
There are some relationships that were obsoleted (mostly for use with col-16). Not sure how other groups are rehousing these annotations. Instead of a regular consistency exercise is it okay if we go through some of the papers and get your input on how to rehouse those col-16 data?