Open codewarrior2000 opened 6 months ago
The discussion group in Chemical Information Working Group meeting (4/2/2024), arrived at consensus to use "xref" node property to hold Reactome's "reaction_url" (it provides a link out to the reaction diagram in Reactome's Pathway Browser, e.g., https://reactome.org/PathwayBrowser/#/R-MMU-5655466).
closing as completed; please reopen if I got this wrong of course! :)
I assume the xref will be used to hold the CURIE, i.e REACTOME:R-MMU-5655466. Standard CURIE expansion resolves to the reactome pathway view
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Sierra Moxon @.***> wrote:
closing as completed; please reopen if I got this wrong of course! :)
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/biolink/biolink-model/issues/1486#issuecomment-2045746438, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOPUNWAEPDEP3WWMBZDY4QQUXAVCNFSM6AAAAABFRZPLJGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBVG42DMNBTHA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Unfortunately, I believe the standard CURIE expansion would likely resolve to: https://www.reactome.org/content/detail/R-MMU-5655466
instead of the pathway view: https://reactome.org/PathwayBrowser/#/R-MMU-5655466
Consequently, our discussion in the Chemical Information Working Group meeting had centered on using the xref to hold that second URL for the pathway view.
adding a "dot extension" prefix at bioregistry: https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry/issues/1085
It looks like bioregistry is taking a different approach to this kind of cross reference, providing a resolution service that allows for a "provider" added in the bioregistry URL, to disambiguate expansions. (see the issue above).
I don't think this helps you much, @codewarrior2000, in terms of providing a CURIE instead of the full URL in the Biolink xref slot.
So I guess I am back to our original thoughts here: that we reuse xref for this purpose, and Larry submits a URL in place of a CURIE in this slot. For discussion in the DM call today.
@sierra-moxon Thank you for going through all bureaucratic steps to help me out. I followed the thread of communications with Charles Hoyt of bioregistry and I gathered that he set it up so that we can hold in "xref", a CURIE that looks like this: REACTOME.BROWSER:R-MMU-5655466. It seemed fine to me if it resolves to the URL, similar to what @cmungall posted yesterday.
Did I make a mistake in taking an overly optimistic interpretation of Mr. Hoyt's suggestion?
I think it would still be the same CURIE, but with two possible URL expansions depending on what you sent bioregistry as metadata for the CURIE, instead of a new prefix for the secondary page at reactome.
e.g.: CURIE: reactome:R-MMU-5655466 (the case of the prefix is a separate issue) expansion_1: https://bioregistry.io/reactome:R-MMU-5655466 expansion_2:https://bioregistry.io/reactome:R-MMU-5655466?provider=browser
vs. (this will not be supported) CURIEa: reactome:R-MMU-5655466 (the case of the prefix is a separate issue) expansion_a: https://bioregistry.io/reactome:R-MMU-5655466 CURIEb: reactome.browser:R-MMU-5655466 (the case of the prefix is a separate issue) expansion_b:https://bioregistry.io/reactome:R-MMU-5655466?provider=browser
so if you provided just "reactome:R-MMU-5655466" (or "REACTOME:R-MMU-5655466") as a biolink:xref
, we wouldn't have enough information to know which expansion to use here (expansion_1 or expansion_2 above), which was the original point of your ticket, I think. :)
you could provide: https://bioregistry.io/reactome:R-MMU-5655466?provider=browser
as the xref of this identifier, and it would redirect to the page you want, and is likely a more stable URL than the direct one at reactome, but this is a separate issue than the one Chris asked, which was: will you provide a CURIE that follows the default expansion? I think we're back to the answer, "no" -- you will have to provide a URL to specifically take the user to that secondary expansion (expansion_2) page.
So, the original point of the ticket was MolePro's need to report Reactome's https://reactome.org/PathwayBrowser/#/R-MMU-5655466 (which we called ""reaction_url") and it will be tagged by biolink:xref. According to Charles Hoyt, the CURIE would be reactome.browser:R-MMU-5655466 for that URL.
However, I don't foresee MolePro providing reactome:R-MMU-5655466 with the biolink:xref.
@codewarrior2000 - no. There will be no curie with a prefix of reactome.browser
.
from DM call:
four options:
attribute_type_id: "biolink:additional_url" <but can have many attributes with this name>
value: "https://reactome.org/PathwayBrowser/#/R-MMU-5655466"
description: "Reactome Pathway"
attribute_source: "infores:reactome"
attribute_type_id: "biolink:additional_url" <but can have many attributes with this name>
value: "https://reactome.org/client/detail/#/R-MMU-5655466"
description: Reactome Detail"
attribute_source: "infores:reactome"
Note: we will just take the first one in the UI if there are multiples.
from Tyler: we want to avoid nodes for all pubs in PubMed - needs to be an attribute not a node.
Question: What is the appropriate Biolink Model slot for a URL associated with a node?
MolePro encountered a data item called "reaction_url" (e.g., https://reactome.org/PathwayBrowser/#/R-MMU-5655466) in the database of Reactome (https://reactome.org/). [EDIT: As a Knowledge Provider, MolePro ingested the "reaction_url" found in the Reactome database and is therefore compelled to submit it to Translator as relevant node information.]
That data item corresponds to the "here" link on https://reactome.org/content/detail/R-MMU-5655466, which leads to the Reactome Pathway Browser for displaying the pathway of a reaction.
Would the xref node property slot be appropriate for conveying the "reaction_url" in MolePro's knowledge graph?