Difference between revisions of "WBConfCall 2021.02.18-Agenda and Minutes"
From WormBaseWikiJump to navigationJump to search
|(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)|
|Line 39:||Line 39:|
* What should be primary?
* What should be primary?
* Need to cover all types of references (e-mail, e.g.).
* Need to cover all types of references (e-mail, e.g.)
Latest revision as of 18:54, 18 February 2021
- WBPaper00026596.ce.mr.csv content incorrect: https://github.com/WormBase/website/issues/8101
Wen contacted the user for clarification.
Agenda and Minutes
Upcoming WB Webinars
- Monday, Feb. 22 - Data mining strategies and workflows
- Friday, Feb. 26 - Author First Pass and Textpresso
- What information do we have about registrants?
Many register but less show up. Perhaps people just use the recorded video. Adding more information about webinar on the web front page.
Cengen-de web app online
- Eduardo has the data and can produce gene/cell-specific outputs.
IWM 2021 WB workshop proposal (deadline Feb 26th)
Will be held June 21-24, 2021.
- Potential Topics:
- Alliance/Future of WormBase
- Data types in WB
- Gene related/biological data (curation decisions, what's excluded, why, time frames,etc)
- Genomic data (data related to species, assemblies, gene model curation etc)
- Data mining tools
- Contributing to WormBase - Community Curation
- Author First Pass
- Data Type-specific Curation
WB annual/biannual publication in Genetics (in lieu of NAR)
Due August 2021.
Alliance not minting Identifiers for References (papers)
- At the technical planning call 2021 02 17, most everyone did not want to mint Alliance identifiers going forward (and they had good reasons for it), hoping we could make do with PMIDs and DOIs.
- Does anyone know the standard for what can get a DOI ? (e.g. can Personal communication get a DOI ?)
- If some WB Papers cannot get DOIs. Does something have to exist as an Alliance Reference to be attached as evidence, or could we have a different datatype for things that don't qualify for a DOI? (In which case, we'd have to mint IDs for those, so may as well call them References ?)
- What should be primary?
- Need to cover all types of references (meeting abstracts, e-mail, e.g.).
- Adam presented the technical planning group's concerns about minting Alliance reference IDs. WB can probably connect Personal communications to Person objects, and hopefully other MODs can bin their non-DOI references and map them to some kind of person object. Kimberly can probably work something out with GSA-based meetings to get permission to mint DOIs for their abstracts, if that's appropriate, but for meetings like EMBL, that might not be possible. We may still have other references that can't have a DOI or Person ID, so we can keep minting WB IDs for them, in which case we'd always be creating PubMod IDs until Alliance can mint Alliance reference IDs. If we'll eventually have to generate any Alliance reference IDs, Manuel thinks it would be better to mint them for all references to make it standardized and less complex to do ID resolution. Todd mentioned that different DOI spaces scope for different things (please correct me if that's not what you said) Karen mentioned we have other sources for minting DOIs if Mike Cherry's 50k/year are not enough. Magda suggests organizing a heirarchy of identifiers. After the call, Chris said interaction data that comes from personal communication is not going into Alliance, and we can't associate them to a reference or a person, but we'd like to get that in eventually.