[Genquire-dev] Re: mapping ensembl to Genquire

[David Block]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Mark Wilkinson wrote:

> David Block wrote:
> 
> > Maybe we're punting by using a higher-level screen.  Mark, what do you
> > think?
> 
> I think we are being sensible by using a high-level screen ;-)
> 
And I agree with everything you say.  Which is how we got along so 
famously for the last two years, right? :)

> Besides which, genquire has a "forward" and "back" button to move you from one
> contig to the previous/next in tiling-path order, so... what is the advantage
> of having it all load up at once?

I tried to say that, but I don't think I ever did in my last email.

> > These are write-back questions, correct?  Mark and I stored GO things
> > somewhat crudely and directly inside our TagValue table, using a small
> > hack.  I'm not sure how we would want to handle this.
> 
> I think we should delay this decision while Ewan and Chris argue about "scary
> DAG stuff".  Since Genquire tries to bind as tightly as possible to BioPerl,
> the final decision on the structure of the annotation object will make a big
> difference to the structure of our code (and our database probably...)

We can live with what we have now - it will work - but choosing now to go 
with bioperl+GO is a sensible thing.

> > BTW, it looks like I'm going to be spending some quality commuting time on
> > a train here in California.  I look forward to some Ewan-ish outbursts in
> > my future!
> 
> Sorry Dave, only British Rail results in creative outbursts.  Southern
> California Rail leads only to massive perspiration.
> 
It's actually quite pleasant here today, about 17 degrees, cloudy, but I'm 
still wearing shorts on principle.

> M

Dave