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.

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

Add prefix: creativebiolabs #1260

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nagutm
Copy link
Collaborator

@nagutm nagutm commented Nov 11, 2024

This pull request addresses the following issue: #1257

Creative Biolabs provides identifiers for various antibody related entities. Their website lists the following categories of products that have unique identifiers which I decided to break into 2 broad semantic spaces:

  • creativebiolabs.antibody: Recombinant antibodies, Functional antibodies, AbPlus, Formats, Research area, Engineered antibodies, AbProcessing
  • creativebiolabs.protein: Tetramers, Proteolytic enzymes, Antibody-like Scaffold proteins, Therapeutic protein, Soluble T Cell receptor

I also considered further dividing these into 5 semantic subspaces to include creativebiolabs.enzyme, creativebiolabs.processing and creativebiolabs.research and even leaving it as a single all encompassing prefix.

I was unable to track down a specific point of contact for this resource and have currently left in some placeholder information for the original contributor of this resource as well.

@cthoyt cthoyt added the blocked label Nov 19, 2024
@bgyori
Copy link
Contributor

bgyori commented Nov 19, 2024

@cthoyt since @garybrandam is not responding but the resource is still worth adding, we were planning to switch to @nagutm as contributor and finalize the PR.

@cthoyt
Copy link
Member

cthoyt commented Nov 19, 2024

I'm skeptical about adding these since the contributor isn't responsive, there isn't a way to resolve these IDs, and I guess there isn't a way to get a full list of identifiers.

I'm curious what makes you think it's worth adding. Have you seen these identifiers appear in some other data resource? Is it valuable just for the fact that it addresses a community suggestion? Or maybe something else?

There are various places where I've written notes on my thought process for what makes something worthy but I don't think I've prepare a centralized guide before.

If you can take care of deleting the group email then this is good enough for now.

Copy link
Member

@cthoyt cthoyt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove the contact - [email protected] - before merging, again, because the Bioregistry policy is only to include explicit single point of contacts.

@bgyori
Copy link
Contributor

bgyori commented Nov 19, 2024

I'm skeptical about adding these since the contributor isn't responsive, there isn't a way to resolve these IDs, and I guess there isn't a way to get a full list of identifiers.

I'm curious what makes you think it's worth adding. Have you seen these identifiers appear in some other data resource? Is it valuable just for the fact that it addresses a community suggestion? Or maybe something else?

I don't have a strong feeling about it, it's just that (1) someone explicitly suggested it (2) the work of curating the resource is already done and (3) it appears to be a legitimate, and notable resource, in particular as a producer of antibodies, so being able to refer to their catalogue numbers via CURIEs in a principled way seems like a nice thing to have for the community in general.

There are various places where I've written notes on my thought process for what makes something worthy but I don't think I've prepare a centralized guide before.

If you can take care of deleting the group email then this is good enough for now.

@cthoyt cthoyt removed the blocked label Nov 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants