[Obo-cell-type] Annotations to cell types (using OBO-Cell)

[Pankaj Jaiswal]

Chris Mungall wrote:
> 
> On Jan 16, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Pankaj Jaiswal wrote:
> 
>> Sue, its a good idea to establish  Xrefs between CT and PO.
> 
> yep!
> 
>> Just a preliminary look at both the CT and PO for plant cell and its 
>> instances.
> 
> You mean subtypes, not instances
> 
> :-)

Right. The subtypes.
It's always confusing.

> 
> Whilst I'm being picky, I recommend using either the unique ID-space 
> (CL) or root node (cell) as a way of identifying an ontology - CT is a 
> little confusing, it stands for too many other things
> 

Got it.

>> Seems to be that there are more cell types listed in PO (almost 
>> double). Also the free text definitions are not consistent with those 
>> from PO. So I am not sure what is the source of the plant cell types 
>> in CT.
>>
>> To avoid the inconsistencies, I suggest that the primary source of all 
>> the plant cell types in CT should be PO and not the other way round. 
>> If in case the CT needs new Plant cell types then a request be 
>> forwarded to PO. CT managers can later using an automated way 
>> collect/update it by pulling the plant cell type terms from PO. 
>> Alternatively we can also generate a mapping file PO2CT and use it for 
>> QC and consistency across both. Based on your suggestions I can ask 
>> Shuly to generate a mapping and add the related ontology DBXref to the 
>> PO terms.
> 
> sounds reasonable.
> 

I will work on it as soon as I get your mapping file (from previous mail)

>> BTW one more suggestion, is it possible to add the 'subset: plant' or 
>> a namespace:plant to quickly identify which terms belong to the plant 
>> cell types. The same is suggested for cell types from other organisms 
>> as well.
>>
>> Any ideas?

Is it a reasonable request?