Ontology meeting 2012-04-25: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The Enzyme Commission has been updating EC numbers at a very high rate lately. | The Enzyme Commission has been updating EC numbers at a very high rate lately. | ||
If we wish to continue to maintain the EC xrefs, we need a strategy to make this viable, possibly by automating part of the work. | If we wish to continue to maintain the EC xrefs, we need a strategy to make this viable, possibly by automating part of the work. | ||
* Can we formally collaborate with them? What is their development process? In a sane world we would have a single ontology that we both work on, and new reactions are added with logical defs to CHEBI. In fact, they should add EC numbers using TG. The hierarchical IDs would pose a challenge but this is doable. --cjm | |||
===DISCUSSION ITEM III: Follow up on "Moving biological_process_xp_cellular_component into live GO"=== | ===DISCUSSION ITEM III: Follow up on "Moving biological_process_xp_cellular_component into live GO"=== | ||
Revision as of 12:07, 24 April 2012
MINUTES: JANE
45 minutes call
DISCUSSION ITEM I: Follow up on chemical xps
See previous discussion here: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Ontology_meeting_2012-04-11
This was followed up by an email thread on the go-editors list. Could we please discuss Jane's questions on the latest message in the thread:
"I think we should definitely do that [i.e. in response to Chris' suggestion "just switch TG to point to UCHEBI and request further changes in CHEBI directly"]. So then new chemicals would only need to go into CHEBI, and we would add xps by hand to x-chemical-edit.obo?
And then we wait to see if Heiko can figure a way to write the xps from TG1.
The downside, I guess, is that we can't leverage the CHEBI structure to place new terms by using TG0 and cut/pasting?"
We keep having frequent requests for chemical terms in SF, so it would be helpful to know how to proceed as effectively as possible. Thanks!
DISCUSSION ITEM II: EC numbers in GO
The Enzyme Commission has been updating EC numbers at a very high rate lately.
If we wish to continue to maintain the EC xrefs, we need a strategy to make this viable, possibly by automating part of the work.
- Can we formally collaborate with them? What is their development process? In a sane world we would have a single ontology that we both work on, and new reactions are added with logical defs to CHEBI. In fact, they should add EC numbers using TG. The hierarchical IDs would pose a challenge but this is doable. --cjm
DISCUSSION ITEM III: Follow up on "Moving biological_process_xp_cellular_component into live GO"
See previous discussion here: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php?title=Ontology_meeting_2012-03-07
Some of these (e.g. neuron projection) are in the scratch directory as cellular_component_xp_cell.obo.
Stems from this SF item: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3518879&group_id=36855&atid=440764