Specific markers are linked to very general cell classes, e.g. these are recorded as generic markers of epithelial cells
Checking out the CCF relationships indicated these are for epithelial cells of the iris epithelium:
As a result, any query for cells expressing AQP1, will find all epithelial cells - although that was clearly not the expert's intent. This will be true with a standard OWL query, but queries using CCF properties would suffer from the same issue unless we generate separate graphs for each table and don't allow for cross-table queries.
Here's another example that shows up an additional problem:
The same generic cell type is linked to two locations but has only one marker set - presumably coming from one location (not sure which). But as there's only one cell type term (IRI), the markers are associated with both locations.
The obvious fix is to make location specific terms for each of these using a standard ROBOT template and add these to CL.
e.g. iris epithelial cell
Specific markers are linked to very general cell classes, e.g. these are recorded as generic markers of epithelial cells
Checking out the CCF relationships indicated these are for epithelial cells of the iris epithelium:
As a result, any query for cells expressing AQP1, will find all epithelial cells - although that was clearly not the expert's intent. This will be true with a standard OWL query, but queries using CCF properties would suffer from the same issue unless we generate separate graphs for each table and don't allow for cross-table queries.
Here's another example that shows up an additional problem:
The same generic cell type is linked to two locations but has only one marker set - presumably coming from one location (not sure which). But as there's only one cell type term (IRI), the markers are associated with both locations.
The obvious fix is to make location specific terms for each of these using a standard ROBOT template and add these to CL.
e.g. iris epithelial cell