-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
composite-metazoan: review use cases, strategy #1959
Comments
This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically in one year from now if no action is taken. |
yes, can add to tech |
no one will deal with this ticket until there is pressure to do so. |
We have collected the composite metazoan tickets under the label 'composite' (might not be complete) |
Yes, @shawntanzk, thank you! We are now elevating the composite files and any issues related to them to high alert! It would really help if we knew exactly which composite files (metazoan? owl or obo?) you are using and for what exact purpose! |
I'm not sure I can share the link to the file we generate using composite-metazoan.owl itself, but this is the script that we use to parse the file: https://github.com/ENCODE-DCC/encoded/blob/dev/src/encoded/commands/generate_ontology.py To summarize it, we take composite-metazoan.owl (along with owls from a few other ontologies) and extract each term in the file. For each term, the script partially traverses the graph to collect the related terms, and stores some of the defined relationships (e.g. part of) that are most relevant for our needs. It produces a large JSON file at the end with all the terms. We encountered an issue with the composite file where some of those relationships disappeared unexpectedly. It appeared to only be affecting relationships between CL and UBERON terms, which helped us narrow it down to a potential issue with composite-metazoan.owl. Please let me know if it would help to go into more detail! |
Thank you very much, that is very helpful! |
This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically one year from now if no action is taken. |
Not really. The only aspect that #3129 addresses is this one:
OWLTools is no longer used anywhere in the As for the rest:
Since this ticket has been opened two years ago, only one user of This is not a technical issue. It’s nothing the “tech group” can do anything about. It’s primarily up to the Uberon stakeholders to decide what they want/need |
CM is incredibly ambitious. It attempts:
Note that it is not the fact that we are integrating across species that is the most ambitious aspect (though that is ambitious). It is the fact that the implicit design patterns are massively different, regardless of species differences. Seemingly minor modeling differences (e.g. treatment of X vessel vs X vasculature) can lead to big complications when making a single consistent structure.
we are forced to remove the strict disjointess axioms from uberon but even then there are things that look odd
Additionally a lot of the code is old owltools code and hard for people to mentally reason about
We should review use cases and see if we can explore simpler strategies, perhaps splitting CM into two files, one more minimal and coherent and the other maximal and experimental
We can also experiment with more pre-empting slurping - if more leafy classes are given uberon IDs and put in the main ontology then they become more visible to normal automation and manual QC workflows
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: