Update extensions structure in JSON to explicitly define order in models about syngo2lego_data_conversion HOT 4 OPEN

Thanks @cmungall for explaining the resulting GPAD limitations! I think for now we can just depend on the syngo2lego code I have to nest these in the model. If someone finds a model with incorrect nesting order I can address it in the syngo2lego code rather than adding flexibility/complexity to the JSON source spec.

from syngo2lego_data_conversion.

Need a bit more context here..

the syngo model correctly nests the synapse in the amygdala.

The export to GPAD is valid but lossy:
http://noctua-dev.berkeleybop.org/workbench/annpreview/?model_id=gomodel:SYNGO_2082

this is because GAF/GPAD extensions do not allow nesting. There is no way around this without extending GAF/GPAD

(The nesting is implicitly there, especially with the separate CC annotation with its amygdala extension. But it's not explicit and any attempt to recover the nesting is heuristic rather than 100% guaranteed valid)

I suggest we simply call this done. People rarely use the extensions, never mind care about nesting.

If people want the full info, it's there in the GO-CAM, we should focus energies on making this more accessible.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where does the JSON you are generating fit in?

from syngo2lego_data_conversion.

OK @cmungall , so is the nesting implicit due to the ontology hierarchy between the CC term and the UBERON? If so, I probably just forgot that and can then expect to handle this in code because I can check the ontology when generating the model.

As far as I know, the JSON that is specced here is the export from SynGO and the input for the syngo2lego Scala code to generate the GO-CAM TTL.

from syngo2lego_data_conversion.

The nesting is absolutely explicit in the GO-CAM

In the GPAD, the nesting is strongly suggested by a number of factors: po CC, po AE generally means po 'CC,po(AE)'. But this is not 100% guaranteed - edge cases involving synapses that are very distant from the soma of the cell. Also, in the GPAD the annotations are not formally associated. So you could have a GPAD where ann1 says g1 is part-of a synapse and ann2 says g1 is part-of the liver. But these are totally different contexts and it would be wrong to say synapse in liver. The fact that the publications are the same suggests the context is the same but the GO-CAM is the only unambiguous way of saying the same context.

syngo2lego - ok, get the context now. So I don't know enough about the source syngo representation and how flexible it is. I don't know if it reliably has nesting or if this is something you must do heuristically when converting to go-cam

from syngo2lego_data_conversion.