You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In general, even if we might not need this information at this point, if it is easy enough to get it now, let's get it now (and we can decide whether to display this information or not).
Answering individual questions:
Counts for exact, broad, narrow are requested but not related. Is that correct?
Answer: this is correct. However, if it is easy enough to add it, let's add it.
Explanation: it might be information that we might want to know at a later time.
Do you want any stats about synonyms that are abbreviations, e.g. total count, count of abbreviations across different synonym scopes, etc?
Answer: I don't think it is needed, but if it is easy enough to add it, let's add it.
Explanation: it might be information that we might want to know at a later time.
Do you want any stats about synonyms with the CLINGEN_LABEL annotation?
Answer: no, we do not need stats about synonyms with the CLINGEN_LABEL annotation
Explanation: I don't think it is useful to follow this information through times and have it updated regularly. If we need it for a report, it can easily be queried with a sparql query.
Do you want the synonym counts for only subclasses of MONDO:0000001 disease?
Answer: yes, limit the synonym counts to diseases.
Explanation: we are limiting our count to diseases (ie not including susceptibilities). It makes the most sense to also limit the synonyms to diseases.
See google sheet with description of what to include in a report of "synonyms statistics".
A few questions to clarify with @sabrinatoro :
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: