Re: [GeneX-dev] Re: Checked in table changes...

[Michael P. <mic...@ho...>]

[Following applies to the "genex2" branch, not version 1]

Jason,

 I remember our conversation about that. You are right..it can go either way.
The current definition of SequenceFeature includes clone, clone provider, a (possible) sample
reference that are much more specific than a reference, for example, to a
gene (e.g., two different clones could contain the same gene). If we decide
to consolidate all that information in AL_Spots, then we should move those fields
as well.

One advantage that I see to keeping SequenceFeature associated with specific
plates, wells, clones, etc. is that a site can establish SequenceFeatures once
for their particular libraries, and various array layouts representing different
combinations of spotting plates could refer to them.  If the info is consolidated
in AL_Spots, then it will be repeated for each array layout.

The disadvantage I see is the one you point out...the lack of a higher level Reporter
entity that ties together related sequence features.

I'm wondering if others on the GeneX list have thoughts on this.

Regards,

Michael Pear
>
> Here was my original desire:
> * The info in AL_Spots describes *exactly* what is on the array, cDNA,
>   oligo, PCR product, etc.
> * the SF table would represent the higher level entity that the spot
>   is attempting to measure, which corresponds to the 'Reporter' notion
>   or our old CSF notion.
>
> This way entries in the AL_Spots table are specific to each layout
> (and thus would want plate, row, and column), and the SF table could
> be shared among different layouts.
>
> On the other hand, we could also put the information about what is in
> each spot in the SF table, the only drawback is that it would get
> pretty redundant with multiple layouts having to potentially re-enter
> the same information multiple times.
>
> That said, I don't see any drawbacks with either approach. Can you see
> any drawbacks with re-utilizing the SF entries with multiple layouts?
> If you can, we should use the approach you checked in. If you don't
> forsee any re-use issues, I'd like to move those columns into
> AL_Spots.
>
> jas.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Genex-dev mailing list
> Gen...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genex-dev