openMetadataInitiative / openMINDS_controlledTerms

Metadata model for the consistent registration of well-defined terms as well as a corresponding library of terminologies (including links to ontological terms where applicable).
MIT License
7 stars 12 forks source link

Microscopy techniques - new instance (and maybe a clean-up) #99

Closed UlrikeS91 closed 2 years ago

UlrikeS91 commented 2 years ago

@ingrre asked if we could add "confocal light-sheet microscopy" and I think that it would make sense to do so. @tgbugs I checked the method ontology but couldn't find it there. Would it make sense to add it?

Additionally, I'm kind of wondering where we draw the line for the microscopy related terms? Below is a list of all microscopy term that we added so far:

The easy one first: "microscopy" needs to be removed. This is a duplication since it exists as an experimental approach (which obviously makes most sense anyway).

Then, I think widefield fluorescence microscopy & epifluorescent microscopy might be synonym (see here: https://oni.bio/nanoimager/super-resolution-microscopy/epifluorescence-microscopy/).

So, in short, my questions are:

  1. Add "confocal light-sheet microscopy" - yes or no?
  2. Remove "microscopy" (actual not a question)
  3. "widefield fluorescence microscopy" same as "epifluorescent microscopy" - yes or no?
  4. If 3. is answers with no, rename "epifluorescent microscopy" to "epifluorescence microscopy" to be consistent with the other fluorescence techniques?

@lzehl feel free to comment as well :)

lzehl commented 2 years ago

@UlrikeS91 I agree to removing "microscopy" but maybe next year (if this is already in use in EBRAINS) I don't want to do another mapping right now for migration. But I will check how far this term is in use.

The rest I leave to @tgbugs

MaaikevS commented 2 years ago

@UlrikeS91 @lzehl, "microscopy" is not in use so can be removed

lzehl commented 2 years ago

@MaaikevS would you prepare the PR for the removal of microscopy? I will delete it afterwards from the EBRAINS KG

MaaikevS commented 2 years ago

@lzehl Sure I can make a PR. Do you mean, remove the file? Or are there some intricate details I am not aware of?

lzehl commented 2 years ago

@MaaikevS yes. just remove the jsonld file. the rest has to happen in the EBRAINS KG.

MaaikevS commented 2 years ago

Done! See PR #145

lzehl commented 2 years ago

Result of discussion with @tgbugs :

Let's add definitions to see what we might want to merge, but I think besides the widefield fluorescence microscopy & epifluorescent microscopy these can be all considered as different techniques

UlrikeS91 commented 2 years ago

Thanks to everybody for all the discussion (online and offline) and the PRs to make first fixes! To see where we are with this issue, I'd like to sumnmarize and identify the parts that are still open.

During the discussion, we pretty much agreed that all of the listed microscopy techniques will remain (except for microscopy which is captured as an experimental approach in openMINDS).

I've copied in the list of techniques from above here again with comments about their status:

(previously) existing technique definition added? other notes
Microscopy - deleted
Brightfield microscopy yes
Confocal microscopy yes
Electron microscopy yes
Fluorescence microscopy yes
Light microscopy yes
Light Sheet Fluorescence microscopy yes
Polarized Light microscopy yes
Widefield microscopy yes
Electron tomography yes wasn't in my original list
Dual View Inverted Selective Plane Illumination microscopy no
Epifluorescent microscopy no this is the same as widefield fluorescence microscopy, delete one and add other as synonym
Focused Ion Beam Scanning Electron microscopy no
Scanning Electron microscopy no
Serial Section Transmission Electron microscopy no
Transmission Electron microscopy had one already
Two-Photon Excitation Fluorescence microscopy had one already
Widefield Fluorescence microscopy had one already this is the same as epifluorescence microscopy, delete one and add other as synonym

This means that the ones without a definition should get one and we should also have a look at the ones that already had a definition again just to check that we are happy with them. All of these should also get ontology IDs if possible, so we could fix those in parallel when adding the definitions and/or check the existing definitions.

Here the questions when I opened the issue:

So, in short, my questions are:

  1. Add "confocal light-sheet microscopy" - yes or no?
  2. Remove "microscopy" (actual not a question)
  3. "widefield fluorescence microscopy" same as "epifluorescent microscopy" - yes or no?
  4. If 3. is answers with no, rename "epifluorescent microscopy" to "epifluorescence microscopy" to be consistent with the other fluorescence techniques?
  1. Still needs an answer, but based on the previous discussions, I would say that we should add it unless one of the existing ones would already cover it. I will look into it and either comment again or make a PR for it.
  2. done
  3. I looked into it and they are the same. I will check which one of the two has been mostly used in the KG and do the mapping if necessary, and of course delete one of them.
  4. We talked about this in a way before and concluded to stick to the term that is used more by the community. I'll check but I assume that it will remain "epifluorescent" (if we use this one and not widefield fl. microscopy).

To-Do:

I think this is it ☺️ Once we fixed the to-do list items, we should be able to close this ticket! I'll work on this today.