-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Different interaction counts for different URIs of the same compound #376
Comments
"You spying Basterds"? :) |
@danidi yeah, I'm thinking in that direction too... I will explore this before the next MSCPiLS meeting this Thursday... Oh, BTW, I check the map/ function in the API, and there both are given as "equivalent"... but, yes, I think too it must have to do with lenses not correctly used or so... |
I guess one of your students ;) |
7 months ago the counts were 163 and 279. Now they are 326 and 489. For the first query the set of URIs inserted into the SPARQL query is:
For the second query the list of URIs is:
|
Yes, the problem seems to be in the fact that the IMS instances do not properly handle directionality it seems... since both input IRIs are equivalent (the IMS says so), it should not matter which one you start with and you should get the same number of mappings. |
@Christian-B, is there anything you can think of why the two IRIs do not give the same number of matches? |
Without looking in any detail or at the particular example I think this may well be related to transative mappings and the choice of where to stop The IMS will not keep going back to the same type of URL So if the IMS is hit with one of the middle URLs (A3) in the above example it may return more results than given A1 As A3 may be close enough to A1 and A5 while they are not close enough to each other === |
@Christian-B, OK, that makes a lot of sense... do you have a script that calculates all transitive link sets, so that we can reproduce that? PS. thanks for your quick response and your response in the first place! |
For speed all links in the IMS where loaded unidirection. Most predicates where considered Bidirectional so each mapping was loaded twice. |
Sorry Egon too long ago for me to remember. |
Yeah, no worries... but I had to ask :) |
There seem to be some mappings from HMDB to other sources, e.g. KEGG (http://alpha.openphacts.org:3004/QueryExpander/mappingSet/189), which are not created via the CRS. If HMDB is no allowed middle source for transitive calculation (not sure where to check that), this could explain why you find these additional mappings only when you start with HMDB directly. |
We're working on making proper links sets for compounds in pathways... @valt is working on (or finished) parsing the WikiPathways SDF so that we can drop the HMDB link sets. |
There are multiple issues now... this bug depends on a redevelopment of a streamlined data loading pipeline (well, redeveloped is likely not the right word: Paul tried to put this on the agenda, but it never was prioritized...). For now, I'll unassign myself, as I cannot do much to fix this at this moment. |
Does the /pathways/interactions/byEntity/count API call use the IMS? The two examples mentioned here are connected in the IMS, but retrieve different counts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: