Difference between revisions of "WBConfCall 2018.05.17-Agenda and Minutes"
From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 50: | Line 50: | ||
**One caveat: if author's potentially correct data in the paper when they submit the strain data to the CGC, how would we reconcile that? | **One caveat: if author's potentially correct data in the paper when they submit the strain data to the CGC, how would we reconcile that? | ||
**It would be good to have a shared data model with the CGC, maybe even share the same curation tool. | **It would be good to have a shared data model with the CGC, maybe even share the same curation tool. | ||
+ | *Circling back, do we really need strain IDs? | ||
+ | *Are strain names unique? | ||
+ | **Karen has found some strain and clone names that are the same. |
Revision as of 16:01, 17 May 2018
Contents
Agenda
HelpDesk - Kimberly
Helpdesk Issues Still Open
WBStrain ids
- would be good to get a list of people who need to be able to create new strains
- will reside temporary in the old NameServer at Sanger and then move to the new Datomic one on AWS
SAB - Toronto, CA
AGR
Minutes
- On call: Adam, Cecilia, Chris, Daniela, Juancarlos, Karen, Kimberly, Raymond, Scott, Sibyl, Todd, Valerio, Wen, Kevin, Paul D, Gary, Matt, Paul K
HelpDesk - Kimberly
Helpdesk Issues Still Open
- I am trying to have access to fosmid ...
- On staging, we will begin providing the end sequences
- We've never had the full sequence, so if we were providing a "fosmid" sequence, it might have been the intervening genomic sequence
- What would users want?
- It seems we could provide the intervening sequence but we need to communicate with users about what they're actually getting, i.e. a prediction.
- Would this be a potential source of confusion to users, though, who may need to validate the sequence against a clone they order from Don Moerman's group?
- Resolution: for next release, provide intervening genomic sequence but make it clear that it's predicted from genomic.
- Chris will check and close the original ticket, if the changes Adam pushed are okay.
- I'm only filling this out because your "need help ...
- We can't really address every possible browser add-on issue
- Sibyl will respond and close.
WBStrainIDs
- Bulk assigning strain IDs to existing strains is easy.
- How do we assign new strain IDs at the point of curation?
- Will treat similarly to variations, i.e. use a name service to check if an ID already exists; if not, can request a new strain ID to use in postgres curation database.
- Who needs access to the name server for this?
- Chris, Daniela, Karen, Ranjana
- Discussed institutional vs personal sign-on; personal is better, allows for assignment of WBPerson IDs
- What additional information will be solicited when requesting a new strain ID?
- Public name is most important
- Reference?
- Genotype?
- This really is an issue of what gets curated where.
- Ideally, we'd have a central curation database (just saying) that would allow immediate entry of the data.
- Another option is that all strain information would come from Caltech curation.
- Would there be anything left for Hinxton to add or do wrt strain curation?
- One caveat: if author's potentially correct data in the paper when they submit the strain data to the CGC, how would we reconcile that?
- It would be good to have a shared data model with the CGC, maybe even share the same curation tool.
- Circling back, do we really need strain IDs?
- Are strain names unique?
- Karen has found some strain and clone names that are the same.