GO-CAM Noctua Call 2018-03-14: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
|||
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
= Minutes = | = Minutes = | ||
*On call: David H., Dustin, Edith, Harold, Jim, Karen, Kevin, Kimberly, Laurent-Phillipe, Liz, Pascale, Paul T., Rob, Sabrina, Sage, Seth, Suzi A., Suzi L. | *On call: David H., Dustin, Edith, Harold, Jim, Karen, Kevin, Kimberly, Laurent-Phillipe, Liz, Pascale, Paul T., Rob, Sabrina, Sage, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A., Suzi L., Tom | ||
== Progress Towards Noctua 1.0 Release == | == Progress Towards Noctua 1.0 Release == | ||
=== Annotation Extension Relations === | |||
*Some relations that are currently used in annotation extensions are not available in the editors | |||
*How should these be handled in Noctua? | |||
**For example, 'has regulation target' | |||
***This has a property chain in go_rel of: regulates o has_participant | |||
***Do these property chains need to be reviewed? | |||
***If we want these, do we need SWRL rules? | |||
**Remove these relations from the 1.0 requirements | |||
**Look at their usage in conventional annotations; prioritize by most commonly used | |||
***Regulation of transcription would be a good place to start | |||
***We have input from this from Astrid | |||
**Map conventional annotations to GO-CAM models | |||
**Fit conventional annotation extensions to fit with GO-CAM representation | |||
**Idea here it to work towards revising conventional annotations to fit GO-CAM, not the other way around | |||
=== GPAD Export Pipeline === | |||
*Derived GPAD annotations need to be slurped up by the corresponding MOD or UniProt | |||
*Models available for slurping should only be production models | |||
*If curators use UniProtKB accessions for mouse annotations, for example, how would this work? | |||
*What should the pipeline be? | |||
**GO-CAM -> GPAD (id-collated) -> ID source -> organism/project-specific database | |||
*https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uR_32I2PYwGl6wZcmENETBV1GsgVtDx_xiHv5fr4xWE/edit | |||
*Who is ready to test the pipeline? | |||
**MGI | |||
**WB | |||
=== Any Curators Still Not Associated with a Group? === | |||
*Need to check users.yaml | |||
*Being associated with a group needs to be a prerequisite for annotating in Noctua | |||
*Older models still need to be re-assigned to a group | |||
*Seth, Jim, and Dustin (?) will look into this and see what models still need groups | |||
== Simple Annoton Editor == | == Simple Annoton Editor == | ||
Line 24: | Line 53: | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:GO-CAM]] |
Latest revision as of 05:45, 16 April 2019
Meeting URL
Agenda
Progress Towards Noctua 1.0 Release
Simple Annoton Editor
- Review tickets on github tracker
- Incorporating annotation rules into the SAE
- What plans do we have for this enhancement?
Consumer Interface, Downloads
- Any items we want to discuss at this point?
Minutes
- On call: David H., Dustin, Edith, Harold, Jim, Karen, Kevin, Kimberly, Laurent-Phillipe, Liz, Pascale, Paul T., Rob, Sabrina, Sage, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A., Suzi L., Tom
Progress Towards Noctua 1.0 Release
Annotation Extension Relations
- Some relations that are currently used in annotation extensions are not available in the editors
- How should these be handled in Noctua?
- For example, 'has regulation target'
- This has a property chain in go_rel of: regulates o has_participant
- Do these property chains need to be reviewed?
- If we want these, do we need SWRL rules?
- Remove these relations from the 1.0 requirements
- Look at their usage in conventional annotations; prioritize by most commonly used
- Regulation of transcription would be a good place to start
- We have input from this from Astrid
- Map conventional annotations to GO-CAM models
- Fit conventional annotation extensions to fit with GO-CAM representation
- Idea here it to work towards revising conventional annotations to fit GO-CAM, not the other way around
- For example, 'has regulation target'
GPAD Export Pipeline
- Derived GPAD annotations need to be slurped up by the corresponding MOD or UniProt
- Models available for slurping should only be production models
- If curators use UniProtKB accessions for mouse annotations, for example, how would this work?
- What should the pipeline be?
- GO-CAM -> GPAD (id-collated) -> ID source -> organism/project-specific database
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uR_32I2PYwGl6wZcmENETBV1GsgVtDx_xiHv5fr4xWE/edit
- Who is ready to test the pipeline?
- MGI
- WB
Any Curators Still Not Associated with a Group?
- Need to check users.yaml
- Being associated with a group needs to be a prerequisite for annotating in Noctua
- Older models still need to be re-assigned to a group
- Seth, Jim, and Dustin (?) will look into this and see what models still need groups