Skip to content
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

term update: genome coverage #1634

Open
cmrn-rhi opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

term update: genome coverage #1634

cmrn-rhi opened this issue Dec 13, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@cmrn-rhi
Copy link

cmrn-rhi commented Dec 13, 2022

This is a request to update the "genome coverage" [OBI:0001939]

New parent term: sequence data [OBI:0000973]
New definition: A sequence data which is the amount of a reference sequence covered by a specific genome of interest, calculated as the total number of generated bases in the sequenced genome divided by the reference/expected genome size.
Definition source: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-9135

Rationale: Would appreciate a more general definition that isn't eukaryotic centric, with additional information being added as comments / editor notes instead of within the definition.

Originally a new term request as part of issue #1579 ROBOT spreadsheet, but has since been removed from that request.

@ddooley ddooley self-assigned this Mar 27, 2023
@ddooley
Copy link
Contributor

ddooley commented Mar 27, 2023

We might not be able to move this under "sequence data" since that data is ostensibly a measurement, not a calculated datum?
Definition source of current term is: "A beginner's guide to eukaryotic genome annotation", doi:10.1038/nrg3174 . "Gene coverage is the percentage of the genes in the
genome that are contained in the assembly."
"Emma Griffiths" definition source!

@ddooley
Copy link
Contributor

ddooley commented Mar 28, 2023

I just tried editing the obi-edit.owl file with protege 5.6.1 and the text diff is gigantic. I'm wondering if all OBI editors are now using 5.6.1? The textual change in the file is often one involving dropping the "string" data type which I guess is a default.:

   - <obo:IAO_0000117 rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">PERSON:Bjoern Peters</obo:IAO_0000117>
   + <obo:IAO_0000117>PERSON:Bjoern Peters</obo:IAO_0000117>

   - <rdfs:label rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">obsolete_is_described_by</rdfs:label>
   + <rdfs:label>obsolete_is_described_by</rdfs:label>

So I can go ahead and do this commit as long as everyone upgrades to protege 5.6.1 .

@jamesaoverton
Copy link
Contributor

It's better if I update the ROBOT version and all the OWL files in one PR.

@ddooley
Copy link
Contributor

ddooley commented Mar 29, 2023

Ok I'll leave that in your hands, and then redo the pull request #1675

@jamesaoverton
Copy link
Contributor

#1676 reformatted all the files with the new OWLAPI, so everyone should use the latest Protege and ROBOT going forward.

ddooley added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2023
Unfortunately there's some non-determinism still moving annotations around.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants