In broad terms, standards such as MIAPPE record experimental details and outcomes, and pxf focuses on the phenotypic observation subset, and derived knowledge-base associations of the sort that might be browsed in Planteome (e.g. a particular genotype or environment gives rise to a particular phenotype). Of course, this still leaves a large area of overlap which needs to be coordinated.
The first level of coordination would be on the ontologies themselves. This would be domain specific. E.g. in plants, the use of PO, TO and CO in the appropriate places.
An additional level is for the recording of phenotypic observations. For example, how are quantitative phenotypes recorded in MIAPPE/ISA vs PXF?
See for example MIAPPE paper
In broad terms, standards such as MIAPPE record experimental details and outcomes, and pxf focuses on the phenotypic observation subset, and derived knowledge-base associations of the sort that might be browsed in Planteome (e.g. a particular genotype or environment gives rise to a particular phenotype). Of course, this still leaves a large area of overlap which needs to be coordinated.
The first level of coordination would be on the ontologies themselves. This would be domain specific. E.g. in plants, the use of PO, TO and CO in the appropriate places.
An additional level is for the recording of phenotypic observations. For example, how are quantitative phenotypes recorded in MIAPPE/ISA vs PXF?
cc @proccaserra @jaiswalp