redundancy in MIAGO

[linikujp]

Repeated conclusion from one publication.

[linikujp]

The IDs for the repeated conclusions are the same.
It is the reclaim of same facts in the ontology.

[honeycat]

I think that it is the reclaim of same facts in the ontology.
xinna

From: Asiyah Yu Lin [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: 2015年5月6日 13:58
To: linikujp/miraging
Subject: Re: [miraging] redundancy in MIAGO (#5)

The IDs for the repeated conclusions are the same.
It is the reclaim of same facts in the ontology.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/5#issuecomment-99553120.

---

Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues

[linikujp]

Another redundancy for co-expression conclusion and assay's connection.
There are two solutions to solve the problem:

1. change the python code.
2. Define MIAGO's logical axioms:
   for example:

• if luciferase assay, then the conclusion should be binding conclusion but not other conclusions.
• if western blot or array, then co-expression conclusion....
  As such, the ontology's reasoning power can be applied, and it ensures the data quality.
  We have to check if some assays give different types conclusion in this case.