Ontology meeting 2012-10-25
ATTENDEES: Jane, Paola, Chris, Heiko, Harold
FOLLOW-UP: ChEBI paper
Judy has made comments on the paper, suggesting we split results and methods up more. If we did this we'd need more interesting results! Discuss next week with David and Tanya present.
FOLLOW-UP: import/export template
Chris has a file. Ions mapped to atoms, need fixing.
ACTION: David and Tanya to do second pass
FOLLOW-UP: non-ChEBI parents for chemical terms
Discussed on email thread (subject: [go-ontology] CHEBI roles used in GO terms), but not resolved on yet.
Pretty much ready to add these links - Heiko and Chris will go ahead and do it and email everyone.
MOP/CP - behaviour (carried over from last week)
We think 'response to...' processes are always single-organism. This is because the process starts when the stimulus has been detected. It doesn't include the stimulus, even when that stimulus is another organism.
At the moment, we have behaviour classified as a response to stimulus. However, there are some behaviours that are definitely multi-organism. For example mating - this inherently has two participants!
So I think behaviour needs to be moved out from response to stimulus so I can split it into single and multi-organism behaviours. What do you think?
ACTION: Check in NBO - run by George [Jane]
FOLLOW-UP: TermGenie template for non-template-able terms
Where are we on this?
See background here: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Ontology_meeting_2012-10-11
FOLLOW-UP: Taxon triggers
Chris has outlined the procedure in this file:
Best to use the script. Don't worry about the id ranges.
ACTION: Someone (Paola?) needs to delete the id range file (remember to cut and paste any useful comments from the REDAME). DONE
FOLLOW-UP: EC numbers in GO - feasibility study
Carried over from a previous meeting: see Action Items and background here: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Ontology_meeting_2012-08-08#FOLLOW-UP:_EC_numbers_in_GO_-_feasibility_study
No further progress. Follow up in a month or so.