Revision as of 18:01, 8 June 2017

Previous Years

Rubber bracelets?
Left over bandanas? paid ~$1 per bandana before. We have enough for WormBase staff
Water bottles?
Small boxes of mints?
Will need to decide soon to have enough time for ordering

Chris still working on ?Phenotype_assay (?Phenotype_experiment/?Phenotype_annotation) class model
May require a new OA that supersedes the Phenotype OA and RNAi OA
The new model still requires the #Phenotype_info hash as long as we still want to make assertions (e.g. loss-of-function, gain-of-function, recessive, dominant) about specific perturbations (e.g. variations) in the context of the phenotype experiment
Have tried to pull penetrance info out of the #Phenotype_info hash and into the ?Phenotype_assay model, but this would require only ever having one phenotype (or one set of phenotypes) with penetrance values per experiment
There are several ?RNAi objects in ACEDB that refer to multiple phenotypes, each with their own remark and penetrance values. Question is whether we want to separate out all the individual phenotype observations into multiple distinct ?RNAi objects and, soon, ?Phenotype_assay objects
If the only time we want to apply a value like "gain-of-function" or "recessive" to an allele is when a single allele is used, we could get away with keeping those tags in the ?Phenotype_assay model and not use the #Phenotype_info hash
Chris will share the model proposal and put together some examples for next week's meeting

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 === IWM swag ===
-[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1butQQgD8OvDoly5yWOh2pbUZzoXV3RzGVbCBLemV6hU/edit | Google Doc]
+[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1butQQgD8OvDoly5yWOh2pbUZzoXV3RzGVbCBLemV6hU/edit Google Doc]
 === ?Phenotype_experiment data model ===