POC Conf. Call 9-8-10
POC meeting, Webex Conference Call; Date: Sept 8th, 2010 10am (PDT)
In attendance:
POC members:
Absent:
Collaborators:
Acceptance of the minutes from the 8-18-10 meeting? All in favor?
Status and Update of Progress: PO Release
A. Feedback Box:
New link to feedback box on beta site- emails will go to po-discuss
- Laurel and Ramona are working on some changes to customize this with additional fields and boxes for more directed responses
Note: It would be better if the feedback box could fill in the relative link automatically from the page. Is this possible??
"eg: Refer to URL: http://www.plantontology.org/index.html "
Apparently this got broken when it was moved to the new spot on the beta browser. JE is looking at getting it to capture the url of the current page being viewed.
B. Response emails
After the meeting po-disciss@plantontology was set up and the members of po-internal were added to it. This is the address that will be used in the letters to the reviewers. Thanks to Chris Sullivan and Justin Elser for helping with this on short notice.
Also, the feedback box ont he beta browser will direct responses there
(Note: We need to define the function of each of the mailing lists: po, po-dev, po-announce, po-internal). I think po-announce, po-internal are fine, but what are the other 2 supposed to be for?
We all agreed that these need to be reviewed and we need to deal with the spam problem as well.
Annotations that have no term associated with them
-Laurel and Ramona compiled a list of the 10 terms that have been obsoleted and how many annotations that are associated with them.
There were only 10 and only 5 of them are problematic: floral bud, gametophyte, leaf whorl, seedling and sporophyte. File:Obseleted terms (LC 8-10-10).pdf
In progress....
Laurel sent a spreadsheet to TAIR and Gramene listing the annotations that were affected on 8/13/10, with our recommendations or suggestions on where they should be moved to.
A. TAIR - 8/13/10 message sent to Donghui, Kate and Tanya:
"The main issues are with the annotations associated with the following PO terms which were obsoleted in the beta version:
PO:0009003: sporophyte 1 (from: po_anatomy_gene_arabidopsis_tair.assoc)
PO:0000056: floral bud 54: (from: po_anatomy_gene_arabidopsis_tair.assoc)
PO:0008037: seedling 16 (from po_anatomy_gene_arabidopsis_tair.assoc)
The first three will need to be looked at to determine where to best put them. We have put our recommendations or suggestions on the spreadsheet
PO:0008034: leaf whorl 15,802: (from po_anatomy_gene_arabidopsis_tair.assoc) These ones are pretty straightforward- we recommend to move them all to the new term collective leaf structure PO:0025022
Spreadsheet: File:TAIR dangling annotations (LC 8-13-10).pdf
- Comments:
Response from Tanya Berardini@ TAIR 8/16/10:
"Hi Laurel,
Thanks for the update and for the spreadsheet. We should be able to handle the transition for the obsoleted terms pretty easily as we already have a mechanism set up for automated transfer of annotations from an obsolete term to a replacement term, if that replacement term is suggested in the OBO stanza.
Comments:
(1) sporophyte - suggestions are fine, annotations should move if replacement term is in OBO stanza (see below:)
(2) floral bud
Why was 'floral bud' removed as a parent term for both 'axillary floral bud' and 'terminal floral bud'? I'm not sure I understand why this potentially useful grouping term was deemed no longer useful. I am not sure that we'll be able to move all our annotations to the more specific terms as the publications do not always specify whether axillary or terminal flower buds were used or whether the DNA/RNA/protein sample was obtained from a mixture of both.
(3) seedling - suggestions are fine, annotations should move if replacement term is in OBO stanza
(4) leaf whorl - suggestion is fine, annotations should move if replacement term is in OBO stanza
When do you anticipate the public release of the new version of the PO vocabularies? We will monitor the annotations that we have to the terms that you highlighted to make sure that the appropriate transfers and updates occur.
Thank you for your help,
Tanya"
Laurel replied and provided more explanation and invited her to review that section and possibly attend the conference call:
B. Gramene - 8/13/10 message sent to gramene@gramene.org contact email. Ken replied and said that Pankaj was the best person to look at these.
File:Gramene dangling annotations (LC 8-13-10).pdf
C. Issues Arising:
*Changes to the annotation files:
- what is the mechanism for making these changes? Are we doing them here or is TAIR/Gramene going to send us new files?
See comments from CM about replacing the terms:
On Aug 17, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Walls, Ramona wrote:
> We have put the replacement terms in the obo stanza as "consider" terms for all of these (check on this)
>>CM: note that where the replacement is clear you can use replaced_by - this means the replacement can happen automatically without a human having to make a choice
- Is there a script for making the changes? Does this apply to the annotation files or just the OBO files?
*sporphytic phase and gametophytic phase
> RW: in several cases (sporphytic phase for sporophyte, gametophytic phase for gametophyte, and seedling growth stage for seedling), we cannot currently add the 'consider' term to the po_anatomy_test file because the consider terms are in a different file (po_temporal_test). Probably the easiest way to solve this would be to merge the two files before the live release.
*Do we want to do the merge before the release?? it seems like this should have been done before sending out to the reviewers.
We do not want to delay the process any further-
What are other options?
CM: As an interim strategy you could embed the id in the comments using a standard syntax, then parse the tags out once you merge files.
What about a "bridge file" We have discussed this in the past but have not implemented it.
*floral bud
> > 2. Based on the response from TAIR (see above), we may want to reconsider obsoleting the term floral bud. Perhaps keeping this term for users is more important that getting rid of it to solve an ontological problem (term have multiple parentage).
CM: Multiple Inheritance isn't an ontological problem, it's an engineering problem for you, in that manually maintaining MI is tedious and error prone. You should move to towards using the reasoner to infer all these, but in the meantime your asserted links /must/ reflect the biology, which in many cases means asserting MI.
D. Resolution:
Feedback on the Beta Release
The review request letters were sent out by email (copied to po-discuss) on Thurs 8-19 and Friday 8/20.
Responses:
*Potential reviewer, institution, email address, suggestions for portions to review:
Sarah Hake*, UC Berkeley, The Plant Gene Expression Center, hake@berkeley.edu, flower (PO:0009046), collective phyllom structure PO:0025023
Quentin Cronk*, Biodiversity Research Center, University of British Columbia, Quentin.cronk@ubc.ca,collective plant structure (PO:0025007)
Paula Rudall*, Head of Micromorphology Section, Royal Botanic Garden, Kew p.rudall@kew.org plant cell (PO:0009002), male gametophyte (PO:0020091) and female gametophyte (PO:0020092)
Sarah Mathews*, Harvard University, Arnold Arboretum, smathews@oeb.harvard.edu, shoot system (PO:0009006), plant tissue (PO:0009007), how does our terminology relate to gene annotation, especially with respect to gymnosperms
Elena Kramer*, Harvard University, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, ekramer@oeb.harvard.edu, plant organ (PO:0009008), flower (PO:0009046)
Neelima Sinha, UC Davis, nrsinha@ucdavis.edu, plant organ (PO:0009008), especially phyllome (PO:0006001)
Chelsea Specht*, UC Berkeley, Plant and Microbial Biology, cdspecht@berkeley.edu, plant organ (PO:0009008), especially plant axis (PO:0025004)
Rob Martienssen*, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, martiens@cshl.edu, shoot system (PO:0009006), how does our terminology relate to gene annotation
Peter Raven*, Missouri Botanical Garden peter.raven@mobot.org, upper level structure [direct children of plant structure (PO:0009011)]
Gar Rothwell*, Ohio University, Department of Environmental and Plant Biology, rothwell@ohio.edu, plant life cycle phase (PO:0028001); upper level structure [direct children of plant structure (PO:0009011)], especially how it relates to fossil taxa; suggestions for terms that might be missing for fossils
Peter Linder*, Universität Zürich, Institut für Systematische Botanik, director of botanical garden, peter.linder@systbot.uzh.ch vascular system, PO:0000034); review the ontology from an ecological perspective
Chris Hardy*, Millersville University, Herbarium, christopher.hardy@millersville.edu, cardinal organ part (PO:0025001); review ontology from a teaching perspective; how will it appeal to the next generation of plant scientists?
Rob Last, Michigan State University, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, lastr@msu.edu, plant cell (PO:0009002), trichomes (PO:0000282)
Robert Stevens, University of Manchester, Bio and Health Informatics Group, robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk, entire ontology, upper level structure
Farshid Ahrestani*, Columbia University, TraitNet, fa2260@columbia.edu, entire ontology, with reference to whatever structures of interest to Traitnet
yes, will do review of the PO
Sandy Knapp*, British Museum, s.knapp@nhm.ac.uk, plant tissue (PO:0009007), overall structure of the ontology
Richard Halse, Oregon State University, email:halser@science.oregonstate.edu, Research area: Taxonomy of the Hydrophyllaceae; ecology and taxonomy of Sidalcea; floristics of Oregon.
collective plant structure (PO:0025007), cardinal organ part (PO:0025001)?
Rich Zobel, USDA, rich.zobel@ars.usda.gov, root system (PO:0025025), root (PO:0009005); note that he has already submitted suggestions
yes, will do review of roots
Austin Mast*, Robert K. Godfrey Herbarium, Florida State University amast@bio.fsu.edu, cardinal organ part (PO:0025001)
Lukas Mueller and Naama Menda, Solanum Genomics Network, Need email, tuber (PO:0004543) and all of its part_of and is_a children
yes, Naama will do review of tuber terms
Updates to the PO Web pages
- So the reviewers can access the obo and OWL files, they should be made available on the download page (http://www.plantontology.org/download/download.html#download).
On all three sites or just on the beta site??** It should be on both Live and the Beta at least.
- Weren't the flat files supposed to be removed back in April??
