Manager Call 2018-02-21: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
--- | --- | ||
For example, in addition to PAINT, MGI brings in rat and human | For example, in addition to PAINT, MGI brings in rat and human | ||
experimental annotations via ISO using MGI orthology assertions. | experimental annotations via ISO using MGI orthology assertions. |
Revision as of 04:14, 15 February 2018
Call in info
https://stanford.zoom.us/j/754529609
Agenda
Agenda for GOC meeting and SAB meeting=
Annotation transfer across species
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1807
Can we come up with a plan for annotation propagation across species moving forward? We have 3 main pipelines at the moment, PAINT, interpro2go, Ensembl (plus various groups may be using their own). Are all using the same rules? Are these clear? Do we need extra rules for blocking certain branches across certain levels? Are we all implementing the do-not-annotate subsets consistently? Do these need expanded, better strategy for response-to terms? - Chris
---
For example, in addition to PAINT, MGI brings in rat and human experimental annotations via ISO using MGI orthology assertions.
We do not use InterPro2GO for cross-species annotations.
The task first is, as you say, to gather status of major groups in this regard. This comes under AGR thinking too.
- Judy
Minutes
- On call: