Projects update meeting 2024-06-12
Attendees
- Members: Chris, Kimberly, Pascale, Seth, Suzi, Jim, Huaiyu, Paul, Cynthia
- Present: Kimberly, Pascale, Seth, Suzi, Jim, Huaiyu, Cynthia
- Regrets: Paul, Chris
Reduced/changed frequency some group GO calls
- All good here?
GO meeting
- Great meeting - thank you, Jim!
- Follow-up ?
- Draft agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FwGxa4jx8rJFjWBcbn4Q7ZzOHCY6-oF0azOrtK3quyk/edit#heading=h.2jptrbvdxk9r
- Next meeting: Oct 15-17, Virtual
Noctua Standard Annotation Form
- Need to agree on how to handle dual-taxon annotations in standard annotation because we are doing this differently in Noctua vs Protein2GO
- Protein2GO: curators add an interacting taxon to a field in the form and it is output in the taxon field of the GAF, pipe-separated from the taxon of the annotated entity, e.g. NCBITaxon:6239|NCBITaxon:652611
- Noctua - dual taxon annotations are captured as an annotation extension to the appropriate BP, e.g. has_input:NCBITaxon652611
- Can we converge on solely capturing this as an annotation extension?
- This would require retrofitting standard annotations in Protein2GO
- Is 'has input' the desired relation? has participant?
- The ShEx already accounts for this
- Other ideas?
Types
We need to know what to do!
- We cannot write GPI documentation & this is confusing for users in AmiGO
- See https://github.com/geneontology/go-site/issues/2246#issuecomment-2013657790
GPAD/GPI documentation
GPAD:
Relations. Where is the source of truth? Do we provide the relations in the website? Link to tech/full specs?
Evidence: Are we allowing any EC?
GPI:
what is the difference between "not mandatory, cardinality 0, 1, >1" and "optional, cardinality 0+"
Encoded by- this is different from DB:DB_Object_ID
Protein Containing Complex Members- this cannot be 1, correct?