-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add taxon constraints to display (redux) #721
Comments
GO:0007117 Noting: {
"nodes": [
{
"id": "NCBITaxon:131567",
"lbl": "cellular organisms"
},
{
"id": "GO:0007114",
"lbl": "cell budding"
},
{
"id": "GO:0007118",
"lbl": "budding cell apical bud growth"
},
{
"id": "GO:1990252",
"lbl": "Syp1 complex"
},
{
"id": "GO:0007119",
"lbl": "budding cell isotropic bud growth"
},
{
"id": "GO:0007117",
"lbl": "budding cell bud growth"
},
{
"id": "GO:0040007",
"lbl": "growth"
}
],
"edges": [
{
"sub": "GO:0007118",
"obj": "GO:0007117",
"pred": "is_a"
},
{
"sub": "GO:0007117",
"obj": "NCBITaxon:131567",
"pred": "RO:0002162"
},
{
"sub": "GO:0007119",
"obj": "GO:0007117",
"pred": "is_a"
},
{
"sub": "GO:1990252",
"obj": "GO:0007117",
"pred": "RO:0002216"
},
{
"sub": "GO:0007117",
"obj": "GO:0040007",
"pred": "is_a"
},
{
"sub": "GO:0007117",
"obj": "GO:0007114",
"pred": "BFO:0000050"
}
],
"meta": {
}
} GO:0000804 {
"nodes": [
{
"id": "NCBITaxon:131567",
"lbl": "cellular organisms"
},
{
"id": "GO:0000804",
"lbl": "W chromosome"
},
{
"id": "GO:0000803",
"lbl": "sex chromosome"
}
],
"edges": [
{
"sub": "GO:0000804",
"obj": "GO:0000803",
"pred": "is_a"
},
{
"sub": "GO:0000804",
"obj": "NCBITaxon:131567",
"pred": "RO:0002162"
}
],
"meta": {
}
} never_in_taxon (RO:0002161) not showing up; compare to: |
@balhoff My understanding is "no". I was under the (possibly erroneous) belief that the addition of the pre-computed ontology terms would have these appear in the usual "neighborhood" graph . Let's touch bases on this this week? |
I don't think you will get the never_in_taxon without Chris's PR. The precomputed taxon constraints just adds more, in different places, of the same things we had before. |
@balhoff Okay, that's the info I was looking for--thank you! |
This was first attempted with #56 but, due to confusion in some cases, it was removed from view.
With the addition of pre-computed ontology terms with geneontology/go-ontology#28760, we'd like to re-add these to the display.
We'll do a cross-check with the issues found in #712 and make sure we're correct this time around.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: