-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
parcellation scheme ingestion #45
Comments
check http://neurolex.org/wiki/Brain_parcels as well |
https://www.nitrc.org/frs/?group_id=1081 for the other waxholm versions to make sure the indexes have not changed. |
#118 for this issue as well |
From @cmungall in JIRA. For when we merge the parcellations back from interlex.
|
http://help.brain-map.org/display/api/Atlas+Drawings+and+Ontologies Allen has evolved and we need to ingest more things. |
Last did this 3 years ago: It appears there is a new adult human one for glioblastoma pba, hba, dhba and dmba seems to be unchanged over 3 years mba seems to have added a bunch of new terms a few name changes
|
I have the skeleton for a 'one shot' check on all the Allen ontologies using their API endpoints to bound the problem. This should also prevent the usual copy/paste issues that I've brought on myself with the current system. |
Marmoset. |
Big brain cortical layers. |
Crossmap and/or include. |
There are a number of brain parcellation schemes that we want to ingest into the ontology. Allen MBA and cocomac have been ingested (though cocomac has not been fully integrated into the ontology), but additional schemes should be ingested as well. For example, Paxinos, Swanson (does his new common mammalian work fit as a parcellation scheme or is it another conceptual level along with BrainInfo, NIFGA, UBERON?, CUMBO?), MNI and other fMRI templates.
UBERON has mappings between a number of these, but we need to bring these terminologies in directly.
Consider the impact on search/autocompletion. Assigning a special category for parcellation scheme concepts in scigraph should allow the webservices to demote them. Not entirely clear what the 'right' way is to redirect to the preferred high level identifier, worth consideration at other levels.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: