Annotation Conf. Call, January 13, 2015

From GO Wiki
Revision as of 18:10, 16 January 2015 by TanyaB (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Present: Rama, Jane, Becky, Paola, Aleks, Tanya, Chris, Suzi, Pascale, Kimberly, Edith, Suzi, DavidH, Li, Judy

Reflect on 2014 and plan for a productive 2015

Feedback on:

  • items discussed at these calls (are they relevant, useful etc)
  • what is frustrating about these calls
  • are the details for each item sufficient, are the minutes thorough?
  • other ideas for improvement ?

Next Call

  • ECO discussion with Marcus


  • Lot of people on the call, hard to raise your hand and make your comment. We need a different way to hold these calls (phone line is not enough) so people can raise their hands on a chat window to make comments. Rama will look into holding these calls via bluejeans (Stanford account).
  • DavidH: We should routinely talk about the Jenkins QC checks and ask questions
  • Kimberly: We haven't done consistency exercise regularly. Rather than one group/person read and present a paper/discuss annotations, we should have all curators make/record annotations and then compare notes. Trying to get 100% consistency cannot happen, but we should strive for 100% correctness. Post meeting: Kimberly suggested that we use textpresso to markup and make annotations and also eventually make a collection of these marked papers for training etc.
    • Rama: I have to bug groups to pick a paper and send it out ahead of time etc. How can we make sure everybody participates? Rama will assign groups for each exercise.
    • We could also make a table listing annotation SOPS from each group
  • David H on Ontology development and follow up with annotations: when a certain area of biology gets overhauled not all groups look at their annotations to see if the ontology works for them. Val looked at pfam families to see if orthologs were annotated correctly. PAINT can be used to do the same. This could be an useful strategy to rehouse annotations, identify holes etc.
    • it will be good to have some curators annotate on a shared area of biology that has been developed in the ontology.