Annotation Conf. Call, June 23, 2015: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
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?

June Consistency paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23954377