[Gmod-schema] Re: unique dbxref_id on cvterm

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Scott Cain wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 19:18 -0800, Chris Mungall wrote:
> > the dbxref must be persistent and consistent across database
> > instances
>
> Why?  By there very nature, they are going to be the sort of thing that
> are locally used and not global.  If they were more generally used, they
> should be on OBO.

Not necessarily. If you look at most of the non-obo ontologies out there
typically available in OWL format, most conflate the name and ID

> > what about making dbxref = cv.name + cvterm.name?
>
> Seems ugly.  So an accession of "Ad Hoc Ontology:synonym" is what you
> are suggesting?

Eh?

A cv.name should never be "Ad hoc" because there will be collisions
between cvs

> >
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Scott Cain wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > I am dreading writing this email a little bit, given the discussion that
> > > occurred a few weeks ago involving dbxrefs and cvterms.  Anyway, I
> > > gather from the comments you added to cvterm that you really did intend
> > > to make a unique index on dbxref_id in cvterm, and I even understand why
> > > you did it given that much of the time, the cvs are coming from a real
> > > ontology and they have accessions.  Of course, some of the time, there
> > > will be "ad hoc" cvs that won't have accessions.  The solution I am
> > > suggesting is the creation of a db sequence and items that don't belong
> > > to a formal ontology will get the next available value from the
> > > sequence.  Does that sound OK to you?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> >
>