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

option for qnode / knode mapping #11

Open
cbizon opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

option for qnode / knode mapping #11

cbizon opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@cbizon
Copy link
Contributor

cbizon commented Jun 8, 2020

Can a single knode map to two qnodes in the same answer? In robokop, the answer was yes, and this turned out to be useful sometimes, when you didn't want to force two nodes to be the same, but you could allow it. For instance, say you have two chemicals you want to relate to a common unknown disease via unknown genes:
(chem1)--(genea)--(disease)--(geneb)--(chem2).
If genea and geneb end up being the same, then that's actually a better, more parsimonious answer.

But sometimes, it's annoying. Say for instance that you want to find a drug for diseaseX by looking for a drug that treats a phenotypically similar drug:
(diseaseX)--(set of phenotypes)--(disease)--(drug)
If you don't control the k/q mapping, disease=diseaseX is a valid answer, but the results are not helpful.

So I think that this may need to be an option. I could imagine worse cases where you want the option set one way for one set of nodes and a different way for others. i.e. the ability to add arbitrary a<>b cypher clauses.

@patrickkwang
Copy link
Contributor

Quick question: Do we care to have the same options for edges?

@cbizon
Copy link
Contributor Author

cbizon commented Jun 8, 2020

I can't think of a case... I've certainly written cypher queries that distinguish nodes, but never worried about edges that I can recall.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants