Manager Call 2018-02-21: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Agenda for GOC meeting and SAB meeting | ==Agenda for GOC meeting and SAB meeting== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
- Judy | - Judy | ||
==USC developers hackaton jamboree report== | |||
Feb 7-8 | |||
===Noctua V1 status report=== | |||
==GH ontology ticket marathon report== | |||
Feb 12-16, Denver | |||
Revision as of 04:17, 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
USC developers hackaton jamboree report
Feb 7-8
Noctua V1 status report
GH ontology ticket marathon report
Feb 12-16, Denver
Minutes
- On call: