Skip to content
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

Provide Uberon mappings as canonical SSSOM files #2833

Closed
matentzn opened this issue Mar 11, 2023 · 9 comments
Closed

Provide Uberon mappings as canonical SSSOM files #2833

matentzn opened this issue Mar 11, 2023 · 9 comments
Assignees

Comments

@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor

While we maintain bridge files for uses related to OWL logical integration, we frequently need more simple mappings for integrating external ontologies into Uberon, i.e. skos or semapv cross-species mappings. While we can obtain some mappings using OAK (using the oboInOwl:hasDBXref property) they have a few undesirable properties like a lot a good number of proxy merges (Uberon:nerve maps to Xenopus:nerve AND Xenopus:peripheral_nerve).

This is not the same as (but related to) @gouttegd effort to moving the maintainance of mappings to SSSOM format. This is about sharing the final set with the community.

@cmungall
Copy link
Member

cmungall commented Mar 11, 2023 via email

@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Made a new issue for the proxy merge review and issue suggestion you made @cmungall: #2834

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 9, 2023

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically one year from now if no action is taken.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Sep 9, 2023
@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

gouttegd commented Sep 9, 2023

PR #3061 generates a SSSOM version of the mappings as part of the bridge generation process. For now this is an intermediate file (generated in src/ontology/tmp) that is not published, but this could easily be changed.

@gouttegd gouttegd removed the Stale label Sep 9, 2023
@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

More people are asking for this, we should really do it. The final set is built as part of the normal release pipeline, all we need to do is to treat it as a release product rather than as a temporary file.

@gouttegd gouttegd self-assigned this Feb 19, 2024
@gouttegd gouttegd added the tech label Feb 19, 2024
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do we need another mappings folder just off the repo root which contains the generated mappings in ODK? Especially for those ontologies that release on GitHub rather than as attachments to GitHub releases?

It would also be nice to get some basic "justification" stuff in there. Maybe as a second step.

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

Do we need another mappings folder just off the repo root which contains the generated mappings in ODK?

That’s a discussion to be had on the ODK repo. I wouldn’t say we need that, but that’s certainly one of the things that the ODK could help standardise (so that if you know that a given ontology follows the ODK workflows, then you know that you can find its mappings in mappings/).

It would also be nice to get some basic "justification" stuff in there.

Not sure what you mean here. Justification for the decision to publish the Uberon mappings? Well, because as I’ve said some people want them, and ideally they don’t want to have to extract them from the ontology.

Or are you referring to the mapping_justification of the Uberon mappings? For now, they are all semapv:UnspecifiedMatching, because they are derived from xrefs and we cannot know what was the justification for those xrefs.

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

gouttegd commented Apr 9, 2024

With #3249, the “meta“ mapping set will be available as a release artefact under the name Uberon.sssom.tsv.

With the default PURL redirection already in place, that artefact will be accessible at http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/uberon/uberon.sssom.tsv, as soon as the next Uberon release happens.

@gouttegd gouttegd closed this as completed Apr 9, 2024
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

matentzn commented Apr 9, 2024

Aweeeesome!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants