-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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 check for database definition cross references to also be a general cross reference #28523
Comments
Hi @pgaudet
Agreed, though I think my #28146 (comment) was for a slightly different check - i.e check for terms that have the same MetaCyc/KEGG (or indeed RHEA/EC) definition xref. But I guess your suggested check will effectively do the same thing - if we ensure that a def xref ALSO appears as a general xref, then any duplicate def xrefs will get flagged up by the existing checks for duplicate general xrefs. So, all is probably fine! |
Right, this is what I meant - once all def xrefs are also general xrefs then we only need to check general xrefs for duplications. |
Google spreadsheet with errors: Def xrefs and general cross refs dont match (306 errors) |
Obsolete:
|
Fixes cases where MetaCyc xref on def is obsolete at MetaCyc:
|
Removing obsolete MetaCyc xrefs as def xrefs. #28523
Fixing other cases where MetaCyc def xref needs to be removed:
|
Removing incorrect MetaCyc xrefs as def xrefs. #28523
Fixing cases where MetaCyc xref in def needs to be added as dbxref:
|
Fixing remaining MetaCyc xref issues:
|
Adding MetaCyc def xrefs as db xrefs. #28523
Fixing MetaCyc def xrefs as db xrefs. #28523
GO:0140859 | RHEA:35811 | |
Fixing UM-BBD def xrefs:
|
(to address #28146 (comment) requested by @sjm41 )
There are many cases where the definition cross references and the general cross references don't match.
Minimally for
We should have a check that any def xref to these databases should ALSO be an general xref.
Thanks, Pascale
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: