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

[Pankaj Jaiswal]

Hi,

I think, he is replying to the previous message from Richard Bruskiewich, Leszek
should brief Richard about our decisions. I agree everybody is using a dedicated
number space.

Pankaj


Sue Rhee wrote:
> 
> 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

******************************************
Pankaj Jaiswal, Ph.D.                                   
Postdoctoral Associate
Dept. of Plant Breeding                             
Cornell University                                   
Ithaca, NY-14853, USA   

Tel:+1-607-255-3103 / Fax:+1-607-255-6683
E mail: pj37 at cornell.edu
http://www.gramene.org   
******************************************