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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

(All-hands2016-wp1) consider including incompletely-annotated tool #79

Closed
joncison opened this issue Mar 9, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

(All-hands2016-wp1) consider including incompletely-annotated tool #79

joncison opened this issue Mar 9, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels
complex feature request We expect this will be hard to do. metrics and meta-registry Concerns metadata calculated from bio.tools content, e.g. metrics.

Comments

@joncison
Copy link
Member

joncison commented Mar 9, 2016

Exposing these to motivate improvements on the annotations
@joncison joncison added the complex feature request We expect this will be hard to do. label Mar 9, 2016
@magnuspalmblad
Copy link

Do we have a metric for this, or is it the annotator who decides that a tool is completely annotated? It is hard to know when an annotations is complete for tools that can perform multiple operations on data in more than one format. Or is an annotation considered complete when there is at least some annotation in each mandatory (asterisked) field?

@joncison
Copy link
Member Author

joncison commented Mar 9, 2016

The biotoolsXSD (the bio.tools schema) defines some attributes as mandatory. Others (although this not defined in the XSD) are "recommended" or "optional" : so that's the basic metric I think.

@joncison joncison added the metrics and meta-registry Concerns metadata calculated from bio.tools content, e.g. metrics. label Mar 17, 2017
@joncison
Copy link
Member Author

Since this post, we lowered the information requirement for "unverified" entries at least, and "LinkedIn-style entry completion percentage" is in the roadmap for 2017 Q3. This will be based upon (weighted) field completion, rather than "scientific completeness" of annotation.

@joncison
Copy link
Member Author

joncison commented Jun 8, 2017

Footnote for @magnuspalmblad, a formal information standard is on the way, see bio-tools/biotoolsSchema#77 (comments there welcome)

@joncison joncison mentioned this issue Jun 1, 2018
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
complex feature request We expect this will be hard to do. metrics and meta-registry Concerns metadata calculated from bio.tools content, e.g. metrics.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@joncison @magnuspalmblad