[Fwd: FW: suggestions for 'POC' methods]

[Sue Rhee]

What message are you responding to? I don't think anyone is saying that we
should not use dedicated numberspace.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Michael Ashburner wrote:

>
> I think I am missing something here.
>
> In my view each independent ontology should have its own id space.  The
> syntax should be
>
> <prefix>:<zero-padded-integer>
>
> This means that a term, plus id, seen in isolation can immediately
> be recognised with respect to its source ontology and there is no
> risk at all of number clashes. GO uses a 7 fig digit; FB uses 9 fig
> digits. DAGedit can handle both.
>
> If groups are collaborting on building/maintaining an ontology
> (a la GO) then they divide their number space (see go/numbers/go_numbers).
>
>
> We then keep (eg in gobo) a register of prefixes.
>
> What is wrong with this ?
>
> Michael
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Rhee                         	rhee at acoma.stanford.edu
The Arabidopsis Information Resource	URL: www.arabidopsis.org
Carnegie Institution of Washington	FAX: +1-650-325-6857
Department of Plant Biology		Tel: +1-650-325-1521 ext. 251
260 Panama St.
Stanford, CA 94305
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------