Manager 22Feb12: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:GO_Managers_Meetings]] | |||
Discussion on the agenda | Discussion on the agenda | ||
* GOC meeting preparation | * GOC meeting preparation | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
** 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? | ||
** '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. | ** 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) | |||
* 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? | ** Anybody planning to go? (Rama) | ||
** | ** Summary of meeting with Sarah Burge, Rfam - interest in GO annotation of ncRNAs. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:28, 27 June 2014
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)
- Biology of Genomes CSHL meeting (http://meetings.cshl.edu/meetings/genome12.shtml)
- Anybody planning to go? (Rama)
- Summary of meeting with Sarah Burge, Rfam - interest in GO annotation of ncRNAs.