Re: [Gusdev-gusdev] SRes.ReviewStatus

[Deborah F. P. <pi...@sn...>]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Joan Mazzarelli wrote:


IMHO:

"manually created" doesn't seem as if it is a review status and this
situation could be covered with "manually reviewed correct" with evidence
being that it was manually created.

I have to agree with Joan, that it may be safer to stick as closely to the
existing manually_reviewed values as possible, 0=unreviewed and 1=manually
reviewed correct and add 2=manually reviewed incorrect as well as
4=updated.
                                               Debbie







 > 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
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>