First email for virus-term overhaul, march 09: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello everyone - we discussed at the last GO meeting the idea of revising the virus-related terms in GO. As we're well into 2009 now, and the next GO meeting is rapidly approaching, I thought it was time to get the ball rolling on this. I realise that people have a lot of stuff on their plates, so don't worry if you can only contribute sporadically. If you really don't want to be involved, however, do let me know. Equally, if there is anyone you think should be involved, do cajole them into joining us.
Hello everyone - we discussed at the last GO meeting the idea of revising the virus-related terms in GO. As we're well into 2009 now, and the next GO meeting is rapidly approaching, I thought it was time to get the ball rolling on this. I realise that people have a lot of stuff on their plates, so don't worry if you can only contribute sporadically. If you really don't want to be involved, however, do let me know. Equally, if there is anyone you think should be involved, do cajole them into joining us.
<br>
<br>
So, I've had a good look at the viral terms and annotations. The terms themselves are a real jumble with no overall structure, and the annotations we have a mainly to a small number of these terms (e.g. GO:0019059 : initiation of viral infection, GO:0019047 : provirus integration, GO:0019061 : uncoating of virus).
So, I've had a good look at the viral terms and annotations. The terms themselves are a real jumble with no overall structure, and the annotations we have a mainly to a small number of these terms (e.g. GO:0019059 : initiation of viral infection, GO:0019047 : provirus integration, GO:0019061 : uncoating of virus).
Therefore, I think the best course of action would be *not* to worry to much about the existing terms and annotations, and together come up with a broad, top-level structure that works for all viruses. Then we can match the existing terms with what we have, and I imagine we'll be able to transfer the vast majority of the annotations to the new terms by using name changes, merges etc.
Therefore, I think the best course of action would be *not* to worry to much about the existing terms and annotations, and together come up with a broad, top-level structure that works for all viruses. Then we can match the existing terms with what we have, and I imagine we'll be able to transfer the vast majority of the annotations to the new terms by using name changes, merges etc.
<br>
<br>
How does that sound? I'm happy to produce an initial straw-man proposal from a text-book that can be hacked about with, as it's usually better to start with something...
How does that sound? I'm happy to produce an initial straw-man proposal from a text-book that can be hacked about with, as it's usually better to start with something...
<br>
<br>
  Jane
  Jane

Revision as of 10:58, 19 March 2009

Hello everyone - we discussed at the last GO meeting the idea of revising the virus-related terms in GO. As we're well into 2009 now, and the next GO meeting is rapidly approaching, I thought it was time to get the ball rolling on this. I realise that people have a lot of stuff on their plates, so don't worry if you can only contribute sporadically. If you really don't want to be involved, however, do let me know. Equally, if there is anyone you think should be involved, do cajole them into joining us.
So, I've had a good look at the viral terms and annotations. The terms themselves are a real jumble with no overall structure, and the annotations we have a mainly to a small number of these terms (e.g. GO:0019059 : initiation of viral infection, GO:0019047 : provirus integration, GO:0019061 : uncoating of virus). Therefore, I think the best course of action would be *not* to worry to much about the existing terms and annotations, and together come up with a broad, top-level structure that works for all viruses. Then we can match the existing terms with what we have, and I imagine we'll be able to transfer the vast majority of the annotations to the new terms by using name changes, merges etc.
How does that sound? I'm happy to produce an initial straw-man proposal from a text-book that can be hacked about with, as it's usually better to start with something...

Jane