Manager 22Feb12: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
** making reports/detailed documents available on the wiki  
** making reports/detailed documents available on the wiki  
** composition of the PAINT training groups
** composition of the PAINT training groups
** what does 'complete' annotation mean? Would it refer to the set of annotations to a gene product, or the contents of a single annotation line? (Emily)
** what does 'complete' annotation mean? Would it refer to the set of annotations to a gene product, or the contents of a single annotation line?  
** CAF usage: optional? (Emily)
** 'not a volunteer consortium' agenda text concern (Emily)
** 'not a volunteer consortium' agenda text concern (Emily)
** clarification of specific agenda topics (e.g. Claire & Rolf's presentaion of additional gene function information - day 2) (Emily)
** clarification of specific agenda topics (e.g. Claire & Rolf's presentaion of additional gene function information - day 2) (Emily)
** clarification of goals finalized on day 3. (Emily)
** clarification of goals finalized on day 3.  


** Should Kimberly be provided with results from the questionnaire and the annotation activities document - so she can respond to some of these needs in her presentation? (Emily)
* proposed_annotation_activities document
** CAF usage: wasn't this to be optional for groups?
** for the complete gp2protein. Should it be clear how this data would be used? i.e. Only for AmiGO searches, or as a way of establishing coverage of genome with annotation? This might be of interest - as some groups, e.g. FlyBase, will have some entries with no sequences or annotations attached, which might be represent a classical mutant rather than a 'real' gene product per se, therefore genome coverage estimates using this data would be wrong. (Emily)
 
** Should Kimberly be provided with results from the questionnaire and the annotation activities document - so she can respond to some of the needs raised by annotation groups in her presentation? (Emily)


* Biology of Genomes CSHL meeting (http://meetings.cshl.edu/meetings/genome12.shtml)
* Biology of Genomes CSHL meeting (http://meetings.cshl.edu/meetings/genome12.shtml)
** Anybody planning to go? (Rama)
** Anybody planning to go? (Rama)


** Summary Emily's meeting with Sarah Burge, Rfam - interest in GO annotation of ncRNAs.
** Summary of meeting with Sarah Burge, Rfam - interest in GO annotation of ncRNAs.

Revision as of 09:06, 22 February 2012

Discussion on the agenda

  • GOC meeting preparation
    • details on presentations (how short etc)
    • making reports/detailed documents available on the wiki
    • composition of the PAINT training groups
    • what does 'complete' annotation mean? Would it refer to the set of annotations to a gene product, or the contents of a single annotation line?
    • 'not a volunteer consortium' agenda text concern (Emily)
    • clarification of specific agenda topics (e.g. Claire & Rolf's presentaion of additional gene function information - day 2) (Emily)
    • clarification of goals finalized on day 3.
  • proposed_annotation_activities document
    • CAF usage: wasn't this to be optional for groups?
    • for the complete gp2protein. Should it be clear how this data would be used? i.e. Only for AmiGO searches, or as a way of establishing coverage of genome with annotation? This might be of interest - as some groups, e.g. FlyBase, will have some entries with no sequences or annotations attached, which might be represent a classical mutant rather than a 'real' gene product per se, therefore genome coverage estimates using this data would be wrong. (Emily)
    • Should Kimberly be provided with results from the questionnaire and the annotation activities document - so she can respond to some of the needs raised by annotation groups in her presentation? (Emily)
    • Summary of meeting with Sarah Burge, Rfam - interest in GO annotation of ncRNAs.