-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
RFC2: DM41/DM50 – could BioSample be an option in these fields #32
Comments
Entries on Biosamples refer to individual plants or parts thereof (MIAPPE observation units/samples), as opposed to the passport/lineage of a plant used in a study (MIAPPE biological material). So I don't think it would be a good idea, especially since it does not help understanding and might give the wrong impression to the audience. DM81 is indeed titled |
Agree with Eliana. Identification of biological material (DM41) and its source (DM50) are only a part of characteristics of a sample being obseved (registered at Biosamples), along with its handling in the experiment. |
I don't think there is any action to be done here, unless we want to explicitly state in the definition that Biosample IDs cannot be used in those fields (DM41, DM51). DM81 already mentions Biosamples in the definition too. |
Almost, we need to add some comments in DM-41 for clarification for the users. Something like : |
Done |
Eg at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/biosample/ ; https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biosamples/ ;https://www.elixir-europe.org/documents/elixir-webinar-biosamples-and-plans-ga4gh-metadata-api-sept-2016
However, we then see Biosamples as DM81 : "External ID" in the "Observation Unit" example. Not sure why these are called External ID when could be Biosample. However, maybe this is to allow xref to any other repository apart from Biosample at eg EBI ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: