Closed lschriml closed 3 years ago
Hello @lschriml ,
I joined the gensc-cig group back in November, so I might be missing some context here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Here, my humble opinion for the terms with expected value 'text or' :
In cases such as 'experimental_factor' having 'text or EFO and/or OBI' allows the alternative to specifying the experiment even when there is no single EFO or OBI term (even in combination) that applies.
Leaving the option 'text or EFO and/or OBI' for non-mandatory MIxS fields (such as experimental_factor, samp_mat_process, etc.) allows (both researchers and curators) to provide details/context as 'text' when there is no appropriated ontology term(s).
Perhaps specifying that an ontology term is preferred over 'text' might help to encourage the use of EFO or OBI.
I hope I understood this right.
Hi @lschriml let me know what are your thoughts.
@mia-lgo - agreed, will leave the fields as is. In the definition, we do specify preference for using ontology terms.
Cheers, Lynn
Current term details Specifications to be made consistent across MIxS
When an ontology term is specified, to be used, in the definition.
Issue, some terms have for Expected value 'text or', other only specify the ontology
Expected value Value syntax Example text or OBI {text}|{termLabel} {[termID]}
update to: Example OBI term, OBI ID time series design [EFO:EFO_0001779]
Note: the Value syntax varies across terms that use and ontology. --> I propose we unify this format to:
{text} {termLabel}:{[termID]}
Cheers, Lynn
as seen for terms:
experimental_factor samp_mat_process growth facility