From: Arnaud K. <ax...@sa...> - 2002-07-12 16:23:03
|
Hi Sharon I had a discussion with Matt and from our point of view, the design you're proposing sounds sensible. Just two clarifications about evidences: (1) for an evidence attached to a GOAssociationInstance, it can be: * Similarity data, * a AAMotifGORule, * a DB Reference, stored in an ExternalDBEntry if it's external, * if it's a pubmed_id, we may want to store the whole reference into a reference entry. But I guess it can be done with the schema you're proposing, is that right ? (2) for an evidence attached to a GOAssocInstEvidenceCode as it may be an "internal DB link", e.g. a protein_id for example, the DB name prefix will be GeneDB in our case, or if it's a GO_id, it will be GO as a prefix. Will it be generated on the fly ? Also re. the GOTerm table, would it be possible to add a comment field ? cheers Arnaud Sharon Diskin wrote: > Hi Arnaud, > > I've attached the new GO schema and documentation that Jonathan Schug > and I have come up. We believe that this new schema addresses your > concern about the association date and also provides a better way of > tracking multiple instances/sources of the same association (see > description of GOAssociationInstance table). > > > Regarding your other question concerning the 'DB:Ref' and 'from or > with', we see these being tracked using the generic Evidence table. > The 'from or with' would be Evidence for the GOAssocInstEvidCode entry > as it is connected to a specific evidence code that is assigned to the > association. The 'DB:Ref' (such as in the PubMed example you > mentioned) would be Evidence for the GOAssociationInstance entry as it > is _not_ connected to a specific evidence code, but rather the > association as a whole. More details can be found in the attached > documentation. > > > Any feedback is welcome. Also, if any of this is unclear, just let us > know. > > Cheers, > Sharon > > |
From: Sharon D. <di...@SN...> - 2002-07-12 21:56:50
|
Hi Arnaud, Thanks for the quick review. Arnaud Kerhornou wrote: > Hi Sharon > > I had a discussion with Matt and from our point of view, the design > you're proposing sounds sensible. > > Just two clarifications about evidences: > > (1) for an evidence attached to a GOAssociationInstance, it can be: > * Similarity data, > * a AAMotifGORule, > * a DB Reference, stored in an ExternalDBEntry if it's external, > * if it's a pubmed_id, we may want to store the whole reference > into a reference entry. But I guess it can be done with the schema > you're proposing, is that right ? That is correct. Since we're using the generic Evidence table, the "fact_table" could be any table in GUS. There are no constraints that force you to have all the DB refereneces stored in an ExternalDBEntry. > > (2) for an evidence attached to a GOAssocInstEvidenceCode as it may > be an "internal DB link", e.g. a protein_id for example, the DB name > prefix will be GeneDB in our case, or if it's a GO_id, it will be GO > as a prefix. Will it be generated on the fly ? I would view this as something generated on the fly. I suppose for external databases (such as GO), we could add an attribute to the ExternalDatabase table that represents the "abbreviated name". This abbreviated name could then be used to prefix identifiers. > > Also re. the GOTerm table, would it be possible to add a comment field ? I do not have a problem with this. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? What type of information would you put in the comment field? Cheers, Sharon p.s. I will be out of town until Monday July 22nd. > > cheers > Arnaud > > Sharon Diskin wrote: > >> Hi Arnaud, >> >> I've attached the new GO schema and documentation that Jonathan Schug >> and I have come up. We believe that this new schema addresses your >> concern about the association date and also provides a better way of >> tracking multiple instances/sources of the same association (see >> description of GOAssociationInstance table). >> >> >> Regarding your other question concerning the 'DB:Ref' and 'from or >> with', we see these being tracked using the generic Evidence table. >> The 'from or with' would be Evidence for the GOAssocInstEvidCode >> entry as it is connected to a specific evidence code that is assigned >> to the association. The 'DB:Ref' (such as in the PubMed example you >> mentioned) would be Evidence for the GOAssociationInstance entry as >> it is _not_ connected to a specific evidence code, but rather the >> association as a whole. More details can be found in the attached >> documentation. >> >> >> Any feedback is welcome. Also, if any of this is unclear, just let >> us know. >> >> Cheers, >> Sharon >> >> > > > |
From: Arnaud K. <ax...@sa...> - 2002-07-16 09:17:24
|
Sharon Diskin wrote: > >> Also re. the GOTerm table, would it be possible to add a comment field ? > > > I do not have a problem with this. Does anyone else have an opinion > on this? What type of information would you put in the comment field? Matt, Do you have an example of comment you want to store ? I should mention than the GO database design allows to store several comments (one to many relationship), one comment field might be enough though and would keep the design simple. cheers Arnaud > > Cheers, > Sharon > > p.s. I will be out of town until Monday July 22nd. > >> >> cheers >> Arnaud >> >> Sharon Diskin wrote: >> >>> Hi Arnaud, >>> >>> I've attached the new GO schema and documentation that Jonathan >>> Schug and I have come up. We believe that this new schema addresses >>> your concern about the association date and also provides a better >>> way of tracking multiple instances/sources of the same association >>> (see description of GOAssociationInstance table). >>> >>> >>> Regarding your other question concerning the 'DB:Ref' and 'from or >>> with', we see these being tracked using the generic Evidence >>> table. The 'from or with' would be Evidence for the >>> GOAssocInstEvidCode entry as it is connected to a specific evidence >>> code that is assigned to the association. The 'DB:Ref' (such as in >>> the PubMed example you mentioned) would be Evidence for the >>> GOAssociationInstance entry as it is _not_ connected to a specific >>> evidence code, but rather the association as a whole. More details >>> can be found in the attached documentation. >>> >>> >>> Any feedback is welcome. Also, if any of this is unclear, just let >>> us know. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sharon >>> >>> >> > |