Should ConceptWiki to GO be in default lens?

[stain]

The conceptwiki to GO linkset is loaded in IMS, but only works with the All lens as its justification is SIO_001166 (annotation) which is not included in
any of the lenses.

Should it remain outside the lens? Is there still a need to load this linkset at all?

There seems to also be a problem of mixed entity types here.

@danidi said:

Seems to have mixed entity types, as genes/proteins/diseases were merged. Is this a problem? http://www.conceptwiki.org/concept/87cf8f1c-6136-4315-bad1-409eaa722cad does not retrieve any mappings with mapURI, although it is in the linkset. (Daniela/7.8.2015)

purl_org_obo_owl_GO-disease.ttl contains only one mapping from Viral Diseases http://www.conceptwiki.org/concept/index/9e702c37-14e8-4e8b-b9e9-e04bacff7fa7 to Viral Process (see http://www.ebi.ac.uk/QuickGO/GTerm?id=GO:0016032). Is this really a correct mapping?

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/QuickGO/GTerm?id=GO:0005127 has ciliary neurotrophic factor as "narrow" synonym. We would add it as "exactMatch" to this term http://www.conceptwiki.org/concept/index/508bfd52-d5c3-4484-8e81-72166e2d8f4a.

[Chris-Evelo]

This maybe related to what we discussed about pathway ontology terms. In some resources we deliberately only have the ontology class identifiers. Of course people using tools also want the labels which are given by these annotation linksets. So it might be the other way around, we might need the annotation linksets, and we might want to add them to all lenses.