[DRAFT: DO NOT MERGE] Adding electrophys terms#463
[DRAFT: DO NOT MERGE] Adding electrophys terms#463shawntanzk wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
|
@tgbugs this is the branch, thanks |
| id: PATO:0070044 | ||
| name: cellular electrophysiological quality | ||
| def: "A cellular quality that exists by virtue of the electrical properties of the cell." [WikipediaVersioned:Electrophysiology&oldid=1059385774] | ||
| xref: ilxtr:ElectrophysiologicalPhenotype |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ilxtr is not in bioregistry - what is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've taken it straight from the link @tgbugs gave above (https://github.com/SciCrunch/NIF-Ontology/blob/78f17596d18bd3f1139ea33bbb6b112c97f8162f/ttl/phenotypes.ttl#L303) happy to change it to something else
src/ontology/pato-edit.obo
Outdated
|
|
||
| [Term] | ||
| id: PATO:0070047 | ||
| name: Petilla sustained spiking phenotype |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we don't normally include the name of the terminology system in the term label, unless really necessary for disambiguation.
Why not just "sustained spiking phenotype"
Also should all Petilla terms not have some kind of provenance to https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2402
(I realize this is a WIP apologies if this is all part of your plan already)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was hoping provenance would be shown by an xref to that paper in def when that is done. Will also add that xref to the Petilla synonyms.
|
@shawntanzk top of your memory: close this, or merge this? |
|
oh wow, erm, I would generally say close, but perhaps close the PR, keep the branch for now? (I know ugly) |
|
These are 1:1 mappings to neuron phenotype ontology terms. If you want to include them the pr needs a bit more work, e.g. they do need the reference to the Petilla paper. I don't know if anyone in BICAN is using them. WRT @cmungall's question about the naming, the reason Petilla is included is because there are many ways that each of these phenotypes can be operationally defined so it is important to specify Petilla because other definitions may not be the same. The versions without Petilla could be their own classes if desired. |
|
I'd forgotten these existed. I think worth keeping and sharing with BICAN e-phys folks. Looks like Petilla removed from name. Maybe we can get an agent to extract text defs from Petilla paper. Will try. |
|
Definitions in linked PR look reasonable. Still working out what copilot has done with branches. |
|
@dosumis so this does not go stale, can you assign someone to finish up? |
5 participants
[INCOMPLETE! DO NOT MERGE YET]
Fixes #462
Structure copied from NLX: https://github.com/SciCrunch/NIF-Ontology/blob/78f17596d18bd3f1139ea33bbb6b112c97f8162f/ttl/phenotypes.ttl#L303
Still requires definitions and contributor to be filled in