Compositional Term Submission Tool: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→v2) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
* works off of OBO or OWL files | * works off of OBO or OWL files | ||
* uses OWLAPIv3 | * uses OWLAPIv3 | ||
* runs in TomCat | * runs in TomCat/Jetty | ||
* uses OWL reasoners | * uses OWL reasoners | ||
Dependencies: [[Transition to OWL]] | Dependencies: [[Transition to OWL]] | ||
See: [[TermGenie2]] | |||
==== Reasoner Benchmarks ==== | ==== Reasoner Benchmarks ==== |
Latest revision as of 17:27, 14 June 2011
(aka TermGenie)
Project lead: Chris
Coordinates with: ontology-editors
Purpose
An increasing number of terms coming in from sourceforge are automatable compositional terms - particularly regulation terms. Ontology editors waste time performing manual tasks that could be automated, and curators experience a bottleneck during annotation.
The compositional term request system allows annotators to use a web template system to instantaneously get the term they require, provided it conforms to an existing pre-determined template. A reasoner is used to place the term automatically in the hierarchy.
Documentation for the system is available here: TermGenie
Groups
Project Dependencies
- Full_Text_Indexing (soft dependency)
- Transition to OWL (for #v2)
Status
#v1 is available to curators, currently on regulation requests are live
Deliverables
v1
v1 is obo-format dependent, uses a custom reasoner, and relies on various ad-hoc scripts
v1 report
A report on the v1 implementation is available:
v2
v2 will be a port of #v1
- implemented in Java
- works off of OBO or OWL files
- uses OWLAPIv3
- runs in TomCat/Jetty
- uses OWL reasoners
Dependencies: Transition to OWL
See: TermGenie2
Reasoner Benchmarks
Need to test various OWL reasoners, simulate evolution of GO
Feasibility Study
Determine feasibility of java version