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

Metatranscriptiome workflow activities were incorrectly labelled #30

Closed
jeffbaumes opened this issue Apr 1, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
high priority schema change Term updates to NMDC Schema
Milestone

Comments

@jeffbaumes
Copy link

The activities were labelled "metagenome" and this was corrected manually in the portal, but I believe this should be fixed upstream in the metadata to get rid of this naming hack.

@jeffbaumes
Copy link
Author

This one has to do with the names given to analysis activities. Are we able to name the workflow actions differently for metaG and metaT for clarity? The activities in question are "Metagenome assembly XXXXX_XXXXX" (should have a name like "Metatranscriptome assembly XXXXXX_XXXXX" for metaT) and "MetagenomeAnnotation activity for gold:GpXXXXXXX" (should have a name like "MetatranscriptomeAnnotation activity for gold:GpXXXXXXX" for metaT).

@dehays
Copy link
Contributor

dehays commented Apr 7, 2021

I'd like to get @scanon @emileyfadrosh input on this. The issue is that while we differentiate at the omics_processing level (DNA was sequenced or RNA was sequenced), the assembly and annotation are the same analysis workflow. At one point Emiley had suggested calling the analysis simply "Annotation" because both metaT and metaG use the same analysis workflow. I'd like Emiley to indicate how things should appear in the UI and Shane to weigh in on differentiating (if necessary) in the analysis workflow metadata.

@jeffbaumes jeffbaumes assigned scanon and jbeezley and unassigned jbeezley Apr 15, 2021
@jeffbaumes
Copy link
Author

In an email thread @emileyfadrosh indicated these should be specified/named differently in the analytic workflows. This requires a change in the schema by @wdduncan and a change to the pipeline by @scanon. Then @jbeezley needs to change the ingest.

@ssarrafan
Copy link
Collaborator

@scanon and @wdduncan is this something that can be done in the next week or two or should it be moved to a future sprint?

@wdduncan
Copy link
Contributor

@scanon do you need a schema change for this?

@wdduncan wdduncan transferred this issue from microbiomedata/nmdc-metadata Apr 16, 2021
@wdduncan
Copy link
Contributor

wdduncan commented Apr 16, 2021

@scanon just to confirm, you need the class/type MetatranscriptomeAnnotationActivity. Right?

In the schema file it will be metatranscriptome annotation activity.

@wdduncan wdduncan added high priority schema change Term updates to NMDC Schema labels Apr 16, 2021
@ssarrafan ssarrafan added this to the Sprint 1 milestone Apr 16, 2021
@dehays
Copy link
Contributor

dehays commented Apr 16, 2021

We need to differentiate metagenome analysis from metagenome analysis in two places.

Currently there are nmdc:MetagenomeAnnotation and nmdc:MetagenomeAssembly

To the schema we need to add nmdc:MetatranscriptomeAnnotation and nmdc:MetatranscriptomeAssembly and @scanon would need to modify how the type is set in metadata to use these two new analysis types.

Change requested to the two metaT workflow metadata: microbiomedata/metaT#8

turbomam added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2024
…y_from_WorkflowExecution

Remove was_informed_by from WorkflowExecution and update data examples
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
high priority schema change Term updates to NMDC Schema
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants