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

Add ability to filter redundant annotations #43

Closed
1 of 4 tasks
cmungall opened this issue Sep 23, 2013 · 9 comments
Closed
1 of 4 tasks

Add ability to filter redundant annotations #43

cmungall opened this issue Sep 23, 2013 · 9 comments
Milestone

Comments

@cmungall
Copy link
Member

cmungall commented Sep 23, 2013

  • Add a flag to the golr schema for annotation documents to state when an annotation is redundant
  • Populate this in the golr loading code
  • Add a test case
  • Add a 'include redundant' toggle facet view; default is off (i.e. we remove redundant by default)

TBD:
do we want a globally redundant flag? Or make this relative to evidence code?

See also:
See also: http://jira.geneontology.org/browse/GO-144

Priority: post-Bar Harbor

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 23, 2013

Just to clarify, we're talking about a new field that is just binary? A la "is_obsolete"?. If so, I'd rather get it in sooner rather than later (even if we don't load it) since I'll be doing another schema update process soon for the complex annotations.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 23, 2013

After conversation: add "is_redundant_for" to annotation schema.
It will be aggregated out during main GAF loader (a la the other aggregate features).
Would take various string values, or nothing at all in the case of completely non-redundant annotations (optional).

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 24, 2013

Added to schema, but not loaded yet.
Currently single-valued.

@cmungall
Copy link
Member Author

Reminder note to self: for bioentity docs we should always filter redundant annotations in the individual lists

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 25, 2013

If I'm following you, I'm not sure how this would work without a separate associated term list for every type of redundancy.

@cmungall
Copy link
Member Author

This would only be for the most general kind of redundancy

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM, kltm notifications@github.com wrote:

If I'm following you, I'm not sure how this would work without a separate
associated term list for every type of redundancy.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/kltm/amigo/issues/43#issuecomment-25108919
.

@cmungall
Copy link
Member Author

cmungall commented Nov 3, 2016

copying comments from @ValWood:

+1
At PomBase we do this with IEAs NAS and TAS,. We only use these to supplement manual annotation and discard anything which is less specific than any manual annotation. Nobody misses them and we remove 87% of our IEAs in this way (all but ~4000 currently).

This has lots of other advantages as well making the annotation easier for our users to consume, the bad IEA annotations are now easy to spot.
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues

http://www.slideshare.net/ValerieWood/pombase-internal-rules-for-curation-using-ontologies
slides 23 -28

@pgaudet
Copy link

pgaudet commented Oct 2, 2018

@cmungall Can we have the decision parameters to flag an annotation as redundant ?

@pgaudet
Copy link

pgaudet commented May 28, 2019

Redundant with geneontology/go-site#943

@pgaudet pgaudet closed this as completed May 28, 2019
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