Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Source Best practices #12

Open
JMante1 opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

Source Best practices #12

JMante1 opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@JMante1
Copy link

JMante1 commented Oct 15, 2020

When a new component is uploaded best practices are required for how the ontology is used to attribute to a source. The prov ontology is currently in use for the spec and it has been suggested that "wasDerivedFrom" should be used. Can we clarify what terms should be used to reference:

  • A part that was pulled from genbank (how do you link to a GenBank identifier like M11180.2)
  • How do you reference a pubmed id?
  • How do you reference an addgene record?
  • How do you reference a doi?
  • How do you reference an igem part - via the igem to sbol conversion or via the original url to igem?
  • What if a url is given as source that does not seem to be a doi or igem?
@cjmyers
Copy link
Contributor

cjmyers commented Oct 21, 2020

For PubMed:
https://identifiers.org/pubmed:16333295

@cjmyers
Copy link
Contributor

cjmyers commented Oct 21, 2020

@cjmyers cjmyers added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 21, 2020
@jakebeal
Copy link
Contributor

This issue should probably be resolved in tandem with SynBioDex/SBOL-specification#439

@cjmyers cjmyers assigned Fontanapink and unassigned goksel May 11, 2022
@LukasBuecherl LukasBuecherl transferred this issue from SynBioDex/SBOL-specification Oct 6, 2022
@Fontanapink Fontanapink removed their assignment Apr 6, 2023
@Gonza10V Gonza10V self-assigned this Apr 27, 2023
@Gonza10V
Copy link
Contributor

I would like to re open this conversation. To my understanding ExternallyDefined is the way to point to external definitions in databases which cover partially what @JMante1 describes. What do we do with random URLs, should they be supported or valid? How can we tell if you are pointing to a valid IRI?
This could also be affected by ExternallyDefined objects constrained to be a feature like in SynBioDex/SBOL-specification#439

@jakebeal
Copy link
Contributor

I would propose that the approaches here group into three general categories:

  1. Pointers to records that are SBOL or a format that can be meaningfully converted into SBOL (e.g., FASTA, GenBank)
  2. Pointers to non-convertible materials that have an identifiers.org URI
  3. Pointers to non-convertible materials that do not have an identifiers.org URI

For case 1, I think we will have different approached depending on whether one is using SynBioHub or SEP054, but in both cases I think we can basically treat it as a TopLevel object that happens to be stored elsewhere (and possibly in another format).

For case 2 and 3, I think we just leave the wasDerivedFrom, using identifiers.org if applicable.

What is the problem that you need to solve right now? Maybe that can focus the discussion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants