Difference between revisions of "Annotation Conf. Call, June 23, 2015"

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with " Category: Annotation Working Group =Agenda= ==June Consistency paper== http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23954377")
 
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 11:06, 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