Managers 03June09: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Agenda/chair: Jane, Midori, Jen, Pascale, | Agenda/chair: Jane, Midori, Jen, Pascale, David, Judy. | ||
Agenda: Chris | Agenda: Chris | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Discussion items== | ==Discussion items== | ||
===Binding:=== | |||
Discussed open calls, but is this for the users, or internally? Perhaps discuss users' analyses? This would be different from actual annotation issues though. | |||
Could have open calls for the two issues separately. Perhaps people could even just listen in, though Jane points out that having a large number of people may make it difficult to get agreement. Judy futher mentions that we need to have the community on board for the system to be useful. | |||
'''Binding Survey''': Too complicated? Lots of options. | |||
Some options were missed out and it is still very complex. | |||
What do the users want from binding? Do people mostly use process? No, they also use function and cell component. Clustering often uses function. | |||
How much do the users actually depend on the binding terms? Do they expect the terms to be exhaustive? For clustering we must surely need an exhaustive graph? | |||
How many users just use the GO to figure out what their gene does? If there are five or six annotations then this can be hard. If they only use for clustering then this is different. We should poll the users on how they use the GO and what they expect. '''Then''' we can tell them about the options on how binding could be captured. | |||
GO-Friends is not ideal for communicating with users, as it is mostly tool developers. How do we reach researchers? Maybe a survey via AmiGO? This has been vetoed as too annoying. | |||
Revision as of 11:14, 3 June 2009
Agenda/chair: Jane, Midori, Jen, Pascale, David, Judy.
Agenda: Chris
Minutes: Jen
Action items from previous calls
All are carried over from March 25
- Pascale and Jane: Organize conference call on usage of tricky GO terms; include ontology editors and annotators (both ref gen and broader annotation list). -> We'll try to do something for the June Reference genome conference call, June 9th.
- Pascale, Chris: Finish and circulate gp2protein file documentation. IN PROGRESS
- PIs will discuss Jen's funding situation and get back to Jen immediately. (Current contract finishes 14th July.)
- Jen: Paper on the trigger file, send a plan to GO-Top: DONE
- Jane: Ask GO-tops about getting a logo professionally designed for GO. (background: Amelia has suggested that we get a logo professionally designed for GO. She suggested this website: http://99designs.com/. Basically you put up a brief for the logo and an amount of prize money (between 100 and 600 USD) and people submit designs. After a week you choose one and the winner gets the prize money.)
- We've now got a graphic designer at EBI to do this for us at no cost to GO. We're putting a spec together for him now, will report when we have something.
Discussion items
Binding:
Discussed open calls, but is this for the users, or internally? Perhaps discuss users' analyses? This would be different from actual annotation issues though.
Could have open calls for the two issues separately. Perhaps people could even just listen in, though Jane points out that having a large number of people may make it difficult to get agreement. Judy futher mentions that we need to have the community on board for the system to be useful.
Binding Survey: Too complicated? Lots of options.
Some options were missed out and it is still very complex.
What do the users want from binding? Do people mostly use process? No, they also use function and cell component. Clustering often uses function.
How much do the users actually depend on the binding terms? Do they expect the terms to be exhaustive? For clustering we must surely need an exhaustive graph?
How many users just use the GO to figure out what their gene does? If there are five or six annotations then this can be hard. If they only use for clustering then this is different. We should poll the users on how they use the GO and what they expect. Then we can tell them about the options on how binding could be captured.
GO-Friends is not ideal for communicating with users, as it is mostly tool developers. How do we reach researchers? Maybe a survey via AmiGO? This has been vetoed as too annoying.