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 sources field to MetaEdge so that infores identifiers are returne… #430

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: 1.4
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sierra-moxon
Copy link
Member

@sierra-moxon sierra-moxon commented Apr 24, 2023

This PR adds the sources field to MetaEdge so that infores identifiers are returned in the meta knowledge graph.

Recently, the modeling and TAQA teams were presented with the use case:
"Find me all the unique triples provided to Translator by SEMMEDDB"

We know that SEMMEDDB is currently being served by both BTE and RTX-KG2. Some questions we wanted to ask with code:

  • Are there any other SEMMEDDB edges in Translator not from these two aggregators?
  • What are the unique SPOQs that we can expect BTE to provide from SEMMEDDB, how about RTX-KG2?
  • Do SPOQs from RTX-KG2 (and ultimately SEMMEDDB) match those provided from BTE (via SEMMEDDB)?

Note: we also have several instances of Chembl and clinicaltrials.gov being ingested by multiple teams. It would be handy for the modeling team to be able to compare translations of these important sources between groups (with the ultimate goal of having one transform schema per ingest that groups could follow to keep ingests consistent).

If testing software finds edges in the metakg that need to change with Biolink releases, it would be very handy for QC to be able to point to the primary_knowledge_source (or sources) for more information.

If not for 1.4, then perhaps this could be considered for the next release.

… least one RetrievalSource member of the sources list on both Edges and MetaEdges
Copy link
Collaborator

@edeutsch edeutsch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a reasonable addition, but I question if we can tolerate to make a mandatory (and thus breaking) addition at this late stage of 1.4. I would be happier with making it optional in 1.4 and mandatory in 1.5 is we so desire.

@edeutsch edeutsch added this to the v1.4 milestone Apr 27, 2023
@edeutsch edeutsch modified the milestones: v1.4, v1.5 May 23, 2023
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants