You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 24, 2019. It is now read-only.
Currently we have a CellStructure annotation and GOCC that pull cell structure terms. With BEL 2.0 we can specify cellular location terms with the location, fromLocation, and toLocation terms.
For existing GOCC namespace:
Incorporate location terms that are children of cellular_component (e.g. plasma membrane). The new terms should use the Location (L) encoding. These should be able to mix with the existing complex-encodings (C) terms in the same file/ConceptScheme.
For MESH namespace:
Create MESH Cellular structure also as a namespace with Location (L) encodings. These should be equivalenced to GOCC Location terms.
Minimally we can get away with adding Location terms to the GOCC namespace.
Yes. The current Abundance (A) encodings used for location terms in both the GOCC and MESHCS namespaces should be updated with the Location (L) encoding. The existing Complex (C) encodings for GOCC should be maintained.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Currently we have a CellStructure annotation and GOCC that pull cell structure terms. With BEL 2.0 we can specify cellular location terms with the
location
,fromLocation
, andtoLocation
terms.For existing GOCC namespace:
Incorporate location terms that are children of cellular_component (e.g. plasma membrane). The new terms should use the Location (L) encoding. These should be able to mix with the existing complex-encodings (C) terms in the same file/ConceptScheme.
For MESH namespace:
Create MESH Cellular structure also as a namespace with Location (L) encodings. These should be equivalenced to GOCC Location terms.
Minimally we can get away with adding Location terms to the GOCC namespace.
@ncatlett Does this make sense?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: