Closed kltm closed 2 years ago
At some point, maybe on the wiki, it would be good to document some of our expectations for what is returned. Maybe we could sit down at some point and have a doc afternoon.
Another way to think about this is a generalised predictions framework. Owl reasoners give predictions with p=1 but we may want to leverage other kinds of predictions in the future
On Thursday, June 18, 2015, kltm notifications@github.com wrote:
At some point, maybe on the wiki, it would be good to document some of our expectations for what is returned. Maybe we could sit down at some point and have a doc afternoon.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/geneontology/minerva/issues/4#issuecomment-113337565.
Cool, yes--I'd like to keep all this supple enough that we don't have to revisit many assumptions if we want to add something like that later.
See #437 Curators would like unique evidence on inferred annotations and some indication of how the inference was made.
This is to bookmark a possible feature discussed with @hdietze. Essentially, inferred types could have an additional property that give a hint about the rational/genesis of an inferred type. This would not prevent "dupe scanning", but it would give more context for downstream consumers to figure out what to do with the information.