-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Taxon constraints inherited from uberon are too metazoan-specific #23012
Comments
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Thanks Jim and Chris. We'll be happy with whatever solution you can come up with. We have no problem with moving away from OWLTools if that's the best plan. |
@ValWood @kimrutherford I've made a little replacement script which is kind of the opposite of what Chris suggested. Instead of filtering axioms based on certain properties out of the ontology, it lets you provide additional properties which you want to chain 'in taxon' over. This way you can take the standard taxon constraint reasoning and make it "stronger" as desired. I ran it and only specified regulates as an additional chain property. This results in a go-plus with an additional 927 terms that had been filtered using the owltools command. This brings back GO:0061246, but I'm sure also some terms you don't want. But those could be targets for improved taxon constraints. If you think this sounds like a good way to go, I can package the script for you. Here are the terms that came back:
|
@balhoff you are correct- this brings back many many terms that I previously spent a lot of time adding taxon restrictions to, so that our users would not see them in the curation tool drop down. It seems trivial but it just seems odd to implement a system that makes the taxon restrictions worse than they used to be (this seems to be a recent problem). But I don't fully understand the situation..... I guess my question is, why use uberon for taxon restrictions if it messes things up. Why not remove the offending relation that "anatomical structures start existing during or after zygote stage" |
We're fixing the Uberon issues in parallel; I just wanted to try to give you a quicker option. Uberon provides many useful taxon constraints; I would say the problem ones here are just errors. My new script is a bit more transparent than the owltools command, so I find it easier to understand what is happening. But I'll focus on getting the changes into Uberon and see if we can quickly get a release out. |
Don't worry about a quick fix especially for us if the changes are pending. I'm happy to keep sessions that I can't approve back for a while to save you doing extra work. Weeks is OK, but let me know if it is many months as we may then need an interim fix. |
Hi, I ask because I thought this was only preventing me re-approving curation sessions that I needed to edit. However, it just struck me that this will prevent any of our community curators from using terms in the anatomical structure branch (so anything to do with conjugation, cell polarity, sporulation etc). I didn't really want to implement the "replacement script" because a) it isn't really clear to me what this is doing and b) would it be practical since we erimport the ontology into PomBAse every day. Would we need to do this every time we update? So I really wanted to check when a proper fix is expected so we can get back to working as normal. I guess really we are waiting on Thanks for any update you can provide so that we can decide what we need to do from a users perspective. |
@cmungall could you take a look at this PR? obophenotype/uberon#2390 |
Thanks Jim! |
this change should fix this issue: |
@balhoff are these changes now in GO ? |
Yes, but yesterday I found there is one additional problem axiom involving 'zygote stage'. I sent @ValWood a workaround to get things working at PomBase, and I will open an issue at Uberon to fix the rest. |
Yay , the work-around worked, and I could approve all of the unapproved sessions. I should have listened and got Kim to do that before. It sounded complicated to me but not to @kimrutherford ! |
Excellent! |
See this ticket, starting from this comment yesterday: #21217 (comment)
@balhoff summarizes:
This summary is correct: Here is the source of the confusion: all classes in Uberon were originally intended for metazoa. CARO was originally intended as the true species-neutral form. However, CARO is not well maintained and it's confusing having latticey terms that are trivially differentiated only be species, so GO has been using Uberon terms as if they were species neutral
Action, from immediate to longer term:
Note the uberon fix may take some discussion, and then will need to be percolated to GO
The final item will take some time but broadly speaking we should be annotating terms we know for sure to be in a taxon with present-in taxon. It would also be good to see a diff with each release of which terms dropped out for main taxa. Some of this should be apparent from the snapshot releases - I assume yesterday we would have been an increase in taxon violations for pombe - but I don't think we have an alert mechanism for deltas here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: