Re: [Gmod-schema] defining organism groups

[Chris M. <cj...@be...>]

On Sep 23, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Robert Buels wrote:

> Naama Menda wrote:
>> I think it should be in the organism module since it has FK to  
>> organism.
> Well lots of other things have FKs into organism that aren't in the
> organism module.  That just means whatever module it goes into has to
> have a dependency there.
>
> However, Naama's proposal seems more general than just taxonomy or
> phylogeny, since this could be used to keep track of groups of  
> organisms
> that, for example, have red fruits.  ;-)
>
> BUT, what about keeping taxonomy/phylogeny data (I don't really know  
> the
> difference between these two, but there probably is one).

I'm sure you will get many different answers from evolutionary  
biologists.

One practical distinction is that the edges in a phylogenetic tree are  
labeled with branch lengths whereas this would not be done in a  
taxonomy (or cv / ontology)


>  It looks to
> me like the Phylogeny module is primarily concerned with storing trees
> (i.e. directed acyclic graphs) of organism relationships, while  
> Naama's
> proposal would store arbitrary graphs.
>
> Seems to me like these are good tables to add (do people agree with  
> this?)
>
> Question is, should they go into
>
> A.) the organism module
> B.) the phylogeny module
> or
> C.) a new module?
>
> I would vote for A.  Thoughts from others on this?
>
> Rob
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart  
> your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and  
> stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register  
> now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf
> _______________________________________________
> Gmod-schema mailing list
> Gmo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gmod-schema
>