Annotation Conf. Call, June 23, 2015: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This issue came up during the April curation consistency discussion (mouse paper). I made a github ticket. | 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 | https://github.com/ebi-uniprot/Protein2GO/issues/1 | ||
How should we control this field so we don't write long sentences? Limit it to 140 characters? Other ideas? | |||
==obsolete relationships== | ==obsolete relationships== |
Revision as of 15:03, 22 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 How should we control this field so we don't write long sentences? Limit it to 140 characters? Other ideas?
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?