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

Disappearing URS #902

Open
hattrill opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 12 comments
Open

Disappearing URS #902

hattrill opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 12 comments

Comments

@hattrill
Copy link

hattrill commented Jul 5, 2024

I have two models in which RNAcentral IDs were used - they are now showing "GP info not available" in the list view or in the pathway editor but I can see them in the form editor. Both IDs are current and they were 'present and stable' the last time I looked at these models a few weeks ago.

Model ID 654d809000000802
gp: URS000012F9EC_9606

Model ID 66187e4700001274
gp: URS000075C624_9606
Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 12 49 24

Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 10 54 11
Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 12 52 04

kltm added a commit to geneontology/neo that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2024
…blems, but why not fix; tagging on to geneontology/noctua#902 as that's when I found it
@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Jul 5, 2024

Okay, to unpack this a little, this entity still seems to be showing up, at least in a test build I did locally and in NEO (http://noctua-amigo.berkeleybop.org/amigo/term/URS000012F9EC_9606). It could just be a sync issue where these temporarily dropped out and have been re-added (assuming that https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/RNAcentral/current_release/gpi/rnacentral.gpi.gz is the right upstream). I think it might be best to wait until the next noctua outage and see if this has "improved".

All that said, I think that there is still discussion on how to handle RNAcental (even putting aside that the actual information present is scarcely more informative than null information, see
geneontology/neo#99). The Makefile is also a little unclear, and the more time I spend poking around in there the more I want to do some cleaning.

@hattrill
Copy link
Author

hattrill commented Jul 8, 2024

Thanks @kltm will check in again after next outage.

@hattrill
Copy link
Author

hattrill commented Sep 9, 2024

@kltm this is still not resolved. Could you give it a look over?

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 9, 2024

@hattrill Okay, looking at the link again, it does seem to "be there", but is missing a namespace. This means that either the GPI/GAF that this information is coming from is messed up, or that the processing of the same is messed up. I'll need to look into this a bit more.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 19, 2024

Origin likely
target/neo-goa_human_rna.obo
by
mirror/goa_human_rna.gpi.gz
from
https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/GO/goa/HUMAN/goa_human_rna.gpi.gz
line

RNAcentral      URS000012F9EC_9606              Homo sapiens (human) hsa-miR-4691-3p            miRNA   taxon:9606                      

Hm...this looks right. Checking processing next.

Trying to duplicate with

make clean && TEST_SRCS=goa_human_rna make test_obo 2>&1 | tee /tmp/log.txt and
make clean && PATH=$PATH:/home/sjcarbon/local/src/git/owltools/OWLTools-Runner/bin/ SRCS=goa_human_rna make all

but it looks good locally. Cleaning workspace and retrying.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 19, 2024

Also checking target/neo-rnacentral.obo; it looks okay too.

Re-running in the side pipeline, I can confirm that the issue persists.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 19, 2024

I can confirm that we have it in
target/neo-goa_human_rna.obo:id: RNAcentral:URS000012F9EC_9606
but it disappears by the time that we get to
neo.obo:id: URS000012F9EC_9606

This is beginning to look like maybe an owltools issue?

I believe I have traced it to this one:
owltools --create-ontology http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/go/noctua/neo.owl target/neo-goa_human_rna.obo imports/pr_import.obo --merge-support-ontologies -o -f obo neo.obo.tmp && grep -v ^owl-axioms neo.obo.tmp > neo.obo

@balhoff I don't suppose you have an instict for what may go off the rails here, before I dig in? Can we replace with robot maybe instead?

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Sep 19, 2024

@kltm I know what's going on. It's due to the OBO prefixes support, which has been a lot more trouble than I expected. It's especially bad here because the NEO build is full of prefix hacks. The new prefix support would actually work really well for this, but not sure how much revamping we want to do. We can either embrace it and use the newest ROBOT, or revert to an earlier build of owltools. Or actually an earlier build of ROBOT would work as well, just need to update the command lines.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 20, 2024

@balhoff Hm. While I am game for any of the above that fixes the problem, my druthers would be starting with things that move us "forward", if not too spendy timewise. I'm happy to give some robot commands a try to see if they give us the results that we want.
For context, the base command in the Makefile is:

neo.obo:  $(OBO_SRCS) $(IMPORTS)
        owltools --create-ontology http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/go/noctua/neo.owl $^ --merge-support-ontologies  -o -f obo $@.tmp && grep -v ^owl-axioms $@.tmp > $@

with OBO_SRCS (and so $^) being defined as a loooooong list of obos.

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 24, 2024

@balhoff I tried to roll my own, but it didn't work like I'd expect:

ROBOT_JAVA_ARGS=-Xmx256G ~/local/src/git/robot/bin/robot annotate --ontology-iri http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/go/noctua/neo.owl --input target/neo-goa_human_rna.obo --output /tmp/neo.owl
ROBOT_JAVA_ARGS=-Xmx256G ~/local/src/git/robot/bin/robot convert --input /tmp/neo.owl --output /tmp/neo.obo

I still get

[Term]
id: URS0000000096_9606

I this because I haven't used the "prefix support" you mentioned above?

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Sep 25, 2024

@kltm here is what I had in mind: geneontology/neo#119

@kltm
Copy link
Member

kltm commented Sep 25, 2024

@balhoff Great--I see what's going on there. I guess it's still WIP, but that's an exciting development!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants