Re: [Gmod-schema] redundancy in databases table

[Scott C. <cai...@gm...>]

On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 14:25 -0500, Don Gilbert wrote:
> Scott,
>=20
> I believe common usage is these database name abbreviations are
> case insensitive. I.e., people tend to use varying case, but
> they should be unique either way; all uppercase is common
> for the acronyms, some are CamelCased.  Pfam is the way Pfam folks
> use it.=20

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines--that the bulk loader should
handle dbxrefs in a case insensitve manner.  Shouldn't be too hard to
add.
>=20
> On this same subject, why is there the, to me, redundant or non-standard =
'DB:'=20
> prefix on these database names?  That is confusing to software as well as=
 not
> common usage as far as I know.  Also, I end up with chado db table name f=
ields
> full of both 'DB:somedb' and 'somedb' due to this.

I don't really know. It must have been a decision made back in the dark
ages; I'm not wedded to it unless there is a good reason for it.

>=20
> -- Don
>=20
--=20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cain, Ph. D.                                   cai...@gm...
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/)                     216-392-3087
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory