Re: [Gusdev-gusdev] SRes.ReviewStatus

[Joan M. <ma...@pc...>]

Hi Jonathan,

I think we need to discuss this a bit more in terms of how this will impact other code we have
which recognizes this assignment, and it is not clear what type of entry has this set in GUS30
now (1 manually created Entry was created by hand; review is not needed.) for it to be taken.

Joan



Jonathan Crabtree wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Joan Mazzarelli wrote:
>
> > In its most simplest vocabulary, I thought that the review_status_id would represent.
> >
> > never reviewed = 0
> > reviewed = 1
> > updated thus review status becomes = 2 (needs to be re-reviewed)
> >
>
> Yes, that's right, although I think that Jonathan's addition ("manually
> created") is likely to be a useful one.  Also, based on the feedback thus
> far, I think the consensus is to have a slightly more complex vocabulary
> than the (0,1,2) that  we originally talked about.  Here's the current
> proposal, based on Angel and Chris's feedback:
>
> 0 unreviewed          Entry has never been manually reviewed.
> 1 manually created    Entry was created by hand; review is not needed.
> 2 reviewed, correct   Entry has been manually reviewed and is deemed to be correct.
> 3 reviewed, incorrect Entry has been manually reviewed and is deemed to be incorrect.
> 4 updated             Entry has been updated since last being reviewed or manually created.
>
> The one thing that I don't like about this is that the names "reviewed,
> correct" and "reviewed, incorrect" are somewhat long.  However, it will be
> possible to do an SQL 'like' query on the ReviewStatus table to find all
> of the reviewed entries (correct or incorrect.)  By the way, the reason
> that I didn't use the original mapping of ids to terms (0 = unreviewed, 1
> = reviewed, 2 = updated) is that id 1 was already in use.  Also, I had
> originally wanted to keep the categories sorted like so:
>
> 1 manually created
> 2 reviewed, correct
> 3 reviewed, incorrect
> 4 updated
> 5 unreviewed
>
> Doing this one would be able to do range queries; all entries with
> review_status_id <= 2 would be manually reviewed and correct.  All entries
> with review_status_id >= 3 would still require action of some sort.
> Anyway, I don't think it's worth the trouble to do this, and it also means
> that you potentially have to renumber the terms if and when more are
> added.  Anyway, unless anyone has strong objections I'll probably
> implement the 5-term vocabulary described above sometime later today.
>
> Jonathan
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gusdev-gusdev mailing list
> Gus...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gusdev-gusdev

--
Joan Mazzarelli
Computational Biology and Informatics Laboratory
Center for Bioinformatics
1429 Blockley Hall
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104