search

EBISPOT / scatlas_ontology

SCA_Ontology
4 stars 2 forks source link

Terms missing from ontology #4

Open S2Ola opened 5 years ago

S2Ola commented 5 years ago
S2Ola commented 5 years ago

@dosumis @simonjupp these terms are not in any of the ontologies , however, i will check what happensto the chebi terms [http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_2704]

  1. @simonjupp @dosumis how do you want to proceed with these other ones ?
S2Ola commented 5 years ago

The CHEBI term : [http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_2704]has been fixed. The terms "RS_ " are from the Rat Ontology.

dosumis commented 5 years ago

We need FBdv terms and I don't see a problem with the one linked to.

dosumis commented 5 years ago

We should probably encourate Mondo over DOID

dosumis commented 5 years ago

Hard to see any justification for using GAZ - probably a mistake, but perhaps we should ask to see the context.

S2Ola commented 5 years ago

This are finally the terms that were not retrieve in the ontology @matentzn , @simonjupp @dosumis

matentzn commented 5 years ago

Can you check with scatlas (email?) wether the following can be replaced:

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/DOID_11722 -> http://www.orpha.net/ORDO/Orphanet_273

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/DOID_0050629 -> http://www.orpha.net/ORDO/Orphanet_51

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0001039 -> http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0011110

matentzn commented 5 years ago

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0001910 is sorted, right @S2Ola ? It is in the new release file?

Ok I guess now there is only one remaining one. That we need to take care off:

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GAZ_00238997

Can we find out whether this term is really necessary? Are they expecting to curate much more from Gazeteer? My inclination is: For one term, it is not worth importing the entire massiveness of GAZ. @simonjupp agree?