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

Add ID prefix listing to config files #67

Open
kevinschaper opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Add ID prefix listing to config files #67

kevinschaper opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@kevinschaper
Copy link
Member

We need to document which prefixes we expect for each entity type generated. At a minimum, this should look like

entity_types:
    biolink:Gene
        id_prefix: 
            - 'MGI'
            - 'Xenbase'
            - 
    biolink:PhenotypicFeature
        id_prefix:
            - 'MP'
            - 'XPO'

Taking it a step further, we could replace the lists of node and edge properties and specifying all of the properties in this same structure. It's a little repetitive, but offers the chance for an extra layer of validation if a property is set in the python code that wasn't configured in the yaml.

entities:
    biolink:Gene:
        id_prefix: 
            - 'MGI'
            - 'Xenbase'
        properties:
            - 'id'
            - 'category'
            - 'provided_by'
    'biolink:PhenotypicFeature':
        id_prefix:
            - 'MP'
            - 'XPO'
        properties:
            - 'id'
            - 'category'
            - 'provided_by'    
    'biolink:GeneToPhenotypicFeatureAssociation':
        id_prefix:
            - 'uuid'
        properties:
            - 'id'
            - 'subject'
            - 'predicate'
            - 'object'
            - 'category'
            - 'relation'
            - 'qualifiers'
            - 'publications'
            - 'provided_by'   
@matentzn
Copy link
Member

matentzn commented Nov 8, 2021

I think this looks great after a cursory glance! Thanks for considering it.

@kevinschaper
Copy link
Member Author

This hasn't been touched or considered in a year, and I'm tempted to drop it off the bottom of the ingest, but at this point maybe it would be worth considering this from a QC POV.

we could have some nice QC for node.category + node.namespace and edge.subject_namespace + edge.category + edge.object_namespace

I don't know how to prioritize this work, but I think we would benefit from being able to fix the surprises that we find.

@kevinschaper kevinschaper transferred this issue from monarch-initiative/koza Jan 23, 2023
@monicacecilia
Copy link

Dear @amc-corey-cox, could I kindly ask if you could please assess the feasibility of including this in our QC suite?
Thank you!
🌷

@monicacecilia monicacecilia transferred this issue from monarch-initiative/monarch-ingest Jan 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants