|
From: Scott C. <ca...@cs...> - 2005-02-22 03:54:23
|
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 19:49 -0800, Chris Mungall wrote: > > 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 Fair enough. Would you prefer 'local'? > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Cain, Ph. D. ca...@cs... GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory |