GO 18th Consortium Meeting Minutes Day 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:37, 24 September 2007

Monday 24th September 2007, Princeton University, NJ

1. Plans for immediate future (SL) a. regulation b. cross products

2. Database report a. schema changes b. production

3. GA files (mike)

4. OBO-Edit (john)

5. Evidence codes (ma)

…

CP results in scratch directory.

…

Discussion gene_ontology_edit.obo file vs original file confused.

JDR – add obo version number to the filename. Then use original name as release version of file.

MA/Mike – change ‘edit’ in curators version to ‘pre_release’ to better describe it’s use. Orig file updated nightly by Stanford.

CJM: need to take versioning a little more seriously – impossible to replicate analyses. How do we cite what version of the GO we use?

Michelle – do we hide pre release file?

Cjm: no, culture of using the latest file.

Michelle: However, orig file updated daily anyway.

DB: not straightforward to find when people took data

SO and Chromosonal Location – CJM and KE discuss offline.

GET SLIDES FROM JDR

Give users a temporary ID to work with when they need a new term.

However many terms rejected

Need to feedback to them outcome of term request.

How do this?

Everyone has some way of dealing with term obsoletion – therefore we can use these mechanisms to feedback to user.

When request closed, use ‘consider’ or ‘replace_by’ tags to get correct term.

Create mini ontology file they can update all their annotations with the new term id.

Discussion follows….

PG: new groups might not be able to handle this.

MC: automation not a human friendly approach, this is not user support per se.

MH: how much more burden to track down terms to suggest and consider a replace_by?

JD: most term requests a lot of work, might be easier to phone the person and do the request on the spot.

SL: but this is an extra to personal communication.

JDR: Seth has already done this – but sounds like we shouldn’t release this publicly.

JB/JDR: not much support for this – put on backburner until we find a good project for this to be used on.

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 '''Discussion follows….'''
+PG: new groups might not be able to handle this.
+MC: automation not a human friendly approach, this is not user support per se.
+MH: how much more burden to track down terms to suggest and consider a replace_by?
+JD: most term requests a lot of work, might be easier to phone the person and do the request on the spot.
+SL: but this is an extra to personal communication.
+JDR: Seth has already done this – but sounds like we shouldn’t release this publicly.
+JB/JDR: not much support for this – put on backburner until we find a good project for this to be used on.