Ontology meeting 2012-05-02: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
We keep having frequent requests for chemical terms in SF, so it would be helpful to know how to proceed as effectively as possible in the meantime. But if it's just a matter of waiting less than a month, we can create the terms ourselves. We (EBI Eds.) assume that we do not need to add to the goche file, but we still need to add to go_xp_chebi until TG is ready, is that correct?
We keep having frequent requests for chemical terms in SF, so it would be helpful to know how to proceed as effectively as possible in the meantime. But if it's just a matter of waiting less than a month, we can create the terms ourselves. We (EBI Eds.) assume that we do not need to add to the goche file, but we still need to add to go_xp_chebi until TG is ready, is that correct?


Jane asks: There may be some xps missing from go_xp_chebi for new terms where we forgot to add them. Is there a way we can get a list of all terms that looks like they should be in go_xp_chebi but aren't?  
Jane asks: There may be some xps missing from go_xp_chebi for new terms where we forgot to add them. Is there a way we can get a list of all terms that looks like they should be in go_xp_chebi but aren't?


Chris (by email): You can either load x-chemical-importer in protege and look for all the classes in the metabolic branch of GO that don't have a "=" in their circle
Or you can load go + gp_xp_chebi + chebi in OE and look for the non-bold terms. In OE you can also do string queries like "matches 'metabolic'" and look for the non-bold in the result, or do a boolean query for string matches and no logical definition  (Tanya: this is the easiest way to see which ones need help)


===DISCUSSION ITEM II: EC numbers in GO===
===DISCUSSION ITEM II: EC numbers in GO===

Revision as of 17:53, 1 May 2012

MINUTES: PAOLA

30-minute 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.

  • Update from Heiko and Chris: TG is almost ready to write to the file directly

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 in the meantime. But if it's just a matter of waiting less than a month, we can create the terms ourselves. We (EBI Eds.) assume that we do not need to add to the goche file, but we still need to add to go_xp_chebi until TG is ready, is that correct?

Jane asks: There may be some xps missing from go_xp_chebi for new terms where we forgot to add them. Is there a way we can get a list of all terms that looks like they should be in go_xp_chebi but aren't?

Chris (by email): You can either load x-chemical-importer in protege and look for all the classes in the metabolic branch of GO that don't have a "=" in their circle

Or you can load go + gp_xp_chebi + chebi in OE and look for the non-bold terms. In OE you can also do string queries like "matches 'metabolic'" and look for the non-bold in the result, or do a boolean query for string matches and no logical definition (Tanya: this is the easiest way to see which ones need help)

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

Jane suggests to form a working group including someone from Rhea to give us a hand, and to do a first pass to see what EC numbers we may have missed so far.


DISCUSSION ITEM III: Follow-up on papers: ChEBI and TermGenie

For the TG paper, to answer the question

"TO DO find rate of new term requests. How many of these fit into a template form?"

See http://gocwiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Template-able_Requests_Prior_To_TG

(Action Item for Becky, Jane and Paola: we'll add to it as we go along)


DISCUSSION ITEM IV: Update on legacy terms without logical definition

There are still lots of terms with labels like

  • X involved in Y
  • X by Y

That lack a logical definition. Note that this means TG will give incomplete inferences for these templates, as the above terms are effectively invisible to it.

What's the plan here? Is everyone aware of the bold / not bold highlighting in OE - this makes it easy to search for strings that lack logical definitions. We need to stay on top of these. There was a tracker item about the involved in ones a while ago, but it just dropped off the radar. Maybe we need to have a person/role whose task is to stay on top of this. In theory it should just be a retrospective task if new terms come in via TG -- cjm

Tanya and I will find the orphans and fix them. -- dph