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

Identify key patterns in eLife Tables #9

Open
lwinfree opened this issue Aug 27, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Identify key patterns in eLife Tables #9

lwinfree opened this issue Aug 27, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@lwinfree
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@chris48s
Copy link
Collaborator

Can we classify into types of tables (along the nature of information held in those tables)

e.g:

  • list of reagents
  • list of tools
  • list of experimental results
  • analytical results
  • univariate analysis
  • omics data (RNA-Seq, Metabolomic profile)
  • gene lists, reagent lists, pathways.

What are the patterns we can spot in different tables that do the same job?
Are they good patterns or bad patterns?
Are there any common consistency problems or ambiguities?
Can we define frictionless data schemas that help to solve those problems?

@lwinfree
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lwinfree commented Sep 2, 2020

identifying patterns here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHw7q6yyUKCPjJkd-bagWGbsZkIBOB96RYOdE4coAKg/edit?ts=5f4e03e8#heading=h.4lz597pousbh

As of end of Day 1, we have ~13 patterns identified. Mainly organized by sections of a manuscript, but also some domain-specific patterns (e.g. FMRI)

Also, Chris has created a site showing tables grouped by exact matching for table names: https://chris48s.github.io/elife-tables/

@lwinfree
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lwinfree commented Sep 2, 2020

Still to do:

  • further refine the group of tables based on their origin {Material & Methods, Results, Discussion}

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants