[Ontology-editors] SF Tracker: XP Group

[Midori Harris]

> I was going to retrospectively go through tracker items and assign them to 
> the "XP" group if the tracker item derives from XP/reasoner-based QC checks.

OK

> This may be useful for tracker metrics/analysis.

Perhaps, tho I'd caution against reading too much into SF counts (more 
below).

> Is this OK? It will generate tracker emails for anyone monitoring the items 
> which may be annoying. I also don't want to mess with any existing system. I 
> notice these items are in the group "GO". Does this mean that the item was 
> finally resolved by the GO editorial office?

The emails are no big deal;  we all have plenty of experience deleting 
them ;)

Anyway, onward ... to the last question, a qualified yes ...

The "GO" group is something of a catchall - the other groups are usually 
used to denote which group, such as a MOD or a GO interest group, 
originated the item. If we don't have another group to attribute an item 
to, we'll put it in the "GO" group. But it does also tend to mean that

One reason our use of groups generally, and the "GO" group in particular, 
is so sloppy is just historical -- our usage evolved slowly without 
advance planning. But another reason is that the SF tracker group system 
isn't ideal for our purposes (I assume it makes more sense for software 
bug tracking). I quite often find it frustrating that a given tracker item 
can only be in one group; we're already encountering cases where a simple 
term request is for both a MOD and the Ref Genome project, and have to 
choose one group arbitrarily for the tracker item. When we start getting 
things like "SGD requested a term that everyone will use for ref gen 
annotation (RG), and Tanya (TAIR) and David (MGI) worked on it, and it's 
got an xp definition and tags (XP) ..." it's only gonna get worse. We need 
a better way -- more flexible than SF categories and groups, but at least 
as easy to use -- to keep track of which changes count toward which group 
metrics. Can we chat about it at the meeting?

m