ggeorghiou
commented
6 years ago Hi Ruth,
Been thinking about this and it may not be necessary since you can already comment on the annotation you want and furthermore, Protein2GO already tracks all changes/history of an annotation. It might be best to just leave a general comment with the Paper page to say it's been checked. We could create a new comment type for the paper page without having to create a check box on a per annotation basis that says we reviewed it.
The problem is that by marking the individual annotation as reviewed may mislead future reviews when the ontology is changed since they will see that it has already been checked. A general comment on the PMID at least groups the annotations from a paper by stating it has been reviewed at a particular time and would be better for tracking what annotations have been examined since on the Gene page you will be able to see the comment associated for that annotation from that particular paper.
Best,
George
Hi Tony and Alex (also Maria and Sandra?)
I have had a chat with Rachael and Pascale about tracking of reviewed annotations.
The GOC is spending considerable time at the moment trying to get the existing annotations more consistent, which means we are being sent lists of annotations to check. Many of the annotations are being revised, but in addition many are fine and need no further revisions. In addition, the PAINT curators are also checking annotations.
We think it would be useful to be able to mark those annotations that have been checked after they have been created. This might be useful when grant review bodies etc ask about how reliable the GO annotations are, and also how many need to be revised.
So I was wondering if it would be possible to add another field to the annotation row and also the annotation paper field, and maybe even the whole protein record at the time of existing annotation review. This would then time stamp when these have been reviewed.
I’m not really sure how this would work best, if there are more than 3 annotation rows you don’t want to be opening each row to say check OK checked revised. So if a paper was checked it would be nice to say whole paper checked, and then just to mark the rows needing edits, unless all need edits! Then for the gene pages the same would be true.
To be honest I think at this point only comments on annotation rows are needed, but I have also suggested something for the paper and gene pages, in case anyone thinks this would be useful too.
Perhaps the following:
Annotation rows: Topic Annotation checked: subtopic training no edits required: then a free text field in case people want to add something? Topic Annotation checked: subtopic training revisions required: then a free text field in case people want to add something?
Topic Annotation checked: subtopic reviewed no edits required: then a free text field in case people want to add something? Topic Annotation checked: subtopic reviewed revisions required: then a free text field in case people want to add something?
Paper page Topic Annotations checked: subtopic training no edits required: then a free text field in case people want to add something? Topic Annotations checked: subtopic training revisions required: then a free text field in case people want to add something?
Topic Annotations checked: subtopic reviewed no edits required: then a free text field in case people want to add something? Topic Annotations checked: subtopic reviewed revisions required: then a free text field in case people want to add something?
Gene page (only apply if all annotations need no edits): Topic Annotations checked: subtopic no edits required: then a free text field in case people want to add something? Topic Annotations checked: subtopic reviewed revisions required: then a free text field in case people want to add something?
No hurry on this
Thanks and have a nice weekend
Ruth @rachhuntley @pgaudet @ggeorghiou