Difference between revisions of "Ontology meeting 2012-09-27"

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 9: Line 9:
 
Following on from the annotation call on Tues, at which there was a lot of confusion. I explained what we meant by 'actively_involved_in' v/s 'involved_in', and that you can be actively involved in something directly or indirectly, as described in Chris's handy figure:
 
Following on from the annotation call on Tues, at which there was a lot of confusion. I explained what we meant by 'actively_involved_in' v/s 'involved_in', and that you can be actively involved in something directly or indirectly, as described in Chris's handy figure:
  
[[Media:Capable of.pdf|200px|thumb|left|capable_of_figure]]
+
[[File:Capable of.pdf|200px|thumb|left|capable_of_figure]]
  
 
as well as the difference between being actively and passively involved in a process. I don't really think I got the message across, so we need to figure out a better way of explaining this - perhaps with a simplfied version of the above? But the consensus seemed to be that no-one had been annotating the passive participants of a process, so I think we can probably use 'actively_involved_in' for all process annotations.
 
as well as the difference between being actively and passively involved in a process. I don't really think I got the message across, so we need to figure out a better way of explaining this - perhaps with a simplfied version of the above? But the consensus seemed to be that no-one had been annotating the passive participants of a process, so I think we can probably use 'actively_involved_in' for all process annotations.

Revision as of 02:08, 26 September 2012

MINUTES: David

ATTENDEES:


Follow-up on ChEBI paper

transmembrane transport/ers vs. transport/ers

Annotation relationships

Following on from the annotation call on Tues, at which there was a lot of confusion. I explained what we meant by 'actively_involved_in' v/s 'involved_in', and that you can be actively involved in something directly or indirectly, as described in Chris's handy figure:

File:Capable of.pdf

as well as the difference between being actively and passively involved in a process. I don't really think I got the message across, so we need to figure out a better way of explaining this - perhaps with a simplfied version of the above? But the consensus seemed to be that no-one had been annotating the passive participants of a process, so I think we can probably use 'actively_involved_in' for all process annotations.