-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
OMIM labels #9
Comments
Dear everybody, Dr. med. Peter N. Robinson, MSc. Von: Melissa Haendel [notifications@github.com] OMIM URIs are currently mostly leaf nodes (or merged as equiv classes if name is same as parent and there is only one child). However, there will occasionally be terms in DC or DO with the same label that don't meet requirements for the merge. Since we don't want to make equivalencies for these OMIM terms (or Decipher for that matter), these terms should be appended with (OMIM) in the label to distinguish them from their parents. DOID_1932 Angelman's syndrome Here for example, we might like to have OMIM appended like this: — |
Orphanet puts these under the class 'etiological subtype'. We treat these as metaclasses in our translation, and retain them as subsets (everything is a subclass of disease in mondo). We could change the merge rule such that OMIMs are merged into their parent if the labels match and its the only non-etiological subtype child. Just FYI here are all our classes in etiological_subtype subset:
|
I don't understand inclusion/exclusion criteria for subclassing of orphanet 'etiological subtype'. Some diseases are due to chromosomal variations, others to infectious agents, fine, but then there are so many other orphanet diseases that also have chromosomal variations that are not classified as etiological subtypes. Since there are no etiological subclasses other than that parent class, to me it seems we ought to just treat these as if they were subclass of 'disease'? Also, we should define merge rules for each vocab. For example, maybe it is ok to merge an OMIM term into a DC or DO term (and orphanet?) when they have the same label and no siblings of any kind? Is the same true for an Orphanet term? |
I don't really know what the orphanet criteria are. We turn this into a subset which has no logical meaning (although we could in theory use the subset information to guide the merge procedure, but it seems this may be dangerous). We should never have to merge an OMIM into a DC due to the way DC is created. |
This issue was moved to monarch-initiative/monarch-disease-ontology-RETIRED#13 |
OMIM URIs are currently mostly leaf nodes (or merged as equiv classes if name is same as parent and there is only one child). However, there will occasionally be terms in DC or DO with the same label that don't meet requirements for the merge. Since we don't want to make equivalencies for these OMIM terms (or Decipher for that matter), these terms should be appended with (OMIM) in the label to distinguish them from their parents.
For example, you could have:
DOID_1932 Angelman's syndrome
--OMIM_105830 Angelman's syndrome
--Orphanet_98794 Angelman syndrome due to maternal 15q11q13 deletion
Here for example, we might like to have OMIM appended like this:
DOID_1932 Angelman's syndrome
--OMIM_105830 Angelman's syndrome (OMIM)
--Orphanet_98794 Angelman syndrome due to maternal 15q11q13 deletion
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: