We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
From identifiers.org: UniProt:P04202 and https://identifiers.org/UniProt:P04202 In our go-cams: UniProtKB:P04202 and http://identifiers.org/uniprot/Q16629
Example in Noctua-models
Fortunately http://identifiers.org/uniprot/Q16629 is still recognized by identifiers.org, but this is not good as IRIs should be the same.
In addition, we may want to use purl e.g. http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P04202 (see issue geneontology/neo#34)
I think this can be solved by just updating the db-xrefs ? @cmungall
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Maybe idetifiers.org is not correct ? UniProt contructs the URLs the same way we do:
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P99999
??
Pascale
Sorry, something went wrong.
Not necessarily an error, it seems identifiers.org has just chosen a different pattern. For instance ensembl ids would also be: https://identifiers.org/ensembl:ENSG00000139618
So their pattern is: https://identifiers.org/{database}:{id}
The issue here is more that we don't have the same IRIs in the GO-CAM and in identifiers.org, which is not great for linked data.
No branches or pull requests
From identifiers.org: UniProt:P04202 and https://identifiers.org/UniProt:P04202
In our go-cams: UniProtKB:P04202 and http://identifiers.org/uniprot/Q16629
Example in Noctua-models
Fortunately http://identifiers.org/uniprot/Q16629 is still recognized by identifiers.org, but this is not good as IRIs should be the same.
In addition, we may want to use purl e.g. http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P04202 (see issue geneontology/neo#34)
I think this can be solved by just updating the db-xrefs ? @cmungall
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: