-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
design refinement of existing CatVrs recipes #64
Conversation
larrybabb
commented
Nov 5, 2024
- embed *Properties into recipes
- refine DefiningContext to DefiningAllele & DefiningLocation
- redraft CategoricalCnv on recent design changes
* refine DefiningContext to DefiningAllele & DefiningLocation * redraft CategoricalCnv on recent design changes
@@ -42,6 +42,14 @@ $defs: | |||
ordered: false | |||
items: | |||
$ref: "#/$defs/Constraint" | |||
mappings: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@larrybabb I'm think we should reevaluate whether it makes sense to keep mappings
in CategoricalVariant
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Documentation re: the new relations needs to me inserted. I have some questions about the division of labor between the new constraints, and what we're doing with the GeneContextConstraint
. Did that get axed?
- $ref: "#/$defs/DefiningAlleleContext" | ||
- $ref: "#/$defs/DefiningLocationContext" | ||
- $ref: "#/$defs/CopyCountConstraint" | ||
- $ref: "#/$defs/CopyChangeConstraint" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know that the word constraint
was dropped from the DefiningAlleleContext
and DefiningLocationcontext
, but should we be consistent and make the drop the word constraint
from the others as well or is there a rationale for distinguishing between them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, have we discussed yet updating the CopyCountConstraint
and CopyChangeConstraint
into a single copy constraint along the lines of the most recent iteration of that constraint in the discussion here?
``sequence_liftover`` refers to variants or locations that represent a congruent concept on a differing assembly of a | ||
human genome (e.g. "GRCh37" and "GRCh38") or gene (e.g. Locus Reference Genomic) sequence. ``transcript_projection`` | ||
refers to variants or locations that occur on transcripts projected from the defined genomic concept. ``codon_translation`` | ||
refers to variants or locations that translate from the codon(s) represented by the defined concept. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are now out of date. Need to update with descriptions appropriate to the nee;y enumerated relations. @ahwagner what is translates_through
?
inherits: Constraint | ||
description: >- | ||
The defining allele and its associated relationships that are congruent | ||
with member variants. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given recent thinking wrt hypothetical lower-order AdjacencyConstraint
, which takes, eg, two vrs:Location
arguments and the stipulates that they are now adjacent (potentially mediated by a linker sequence, etc), the gates are open to the idea that a single vrs object may satisfy be reused to satisfy the arguments of multiple states (which also means the logic is now non-linear, which I don't think is a problem, but I'll make a note in my brain to ponder later).
So, is there a reason to have the dichotomy of a DefiningLocationContext
and DefiningAlleleContext
instead of a DefiningLocationContext
and a DefiningStateContext
where the latter state context functions more akin to a sequence or functional entity (like a gene) completely divorced from a location in the genome, and therefore a system where a vrs:Allele
would be sufficient to satisfy both the DefiningLocationContext
and DefiningStateContext
, but a vrs:Location
would only satisfy the DefiningLocationContext
?
Or put another way, in splitting out the DefiningContextConstraint
, we now have one constraint that only handles location information, and another that... does the smae thing as the prior DefiningContextConstraint
.
description: >- | ||
Defined relationships between members of the categorical variant and the defining context. | ||
Defined relationships from which members relate to the defining context. | ||
``sequence_liftover`` refers to variants or locations that represent a congruent concept on a differing assembly of a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ditto above, this needs to be updated in line with the new relations.
``sequence_liftover`` refers to variants or locations that represent a congruent concept on a differing assembly of a | ||
human genome (e.g. "GRCh37" and "GRCh38") or gene (e.g. Locus Reference Genomic) sequence. ``transcript_projection`` | ||
refers to variants or locations that occur on transcripts projected from the defined genomic concept. ``codon_translation`` | ||
refers to variants or locations that translate from the codon(s) represented by the defined concept. | ||
matchCharacteristic: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am excited to see what this gets us.