Re: Crossreferences in glossary?

Murray-Rust Dr P (
Thu, 26 Jan 1995 14:02:37 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Cornelius Krasel wrote:

> Has there been a decision how to handle crossreferences in the glossary
We try to let all of our discussions take place on the listproc, so that
it's a completely communal effort.

> entry? E.g. when an entry concerning "periplasm" refers to "bacterium",

There are several cases:

(a) You create periplasm and bacterium exists already IN THE SAME GLOSSARY.
We would mark up the DESCRIPTION ONLY in automatica fashion. (I haven't
done this yet, but it's straightforward.) So that you don't need to
worry about crossreferencing existing terms.

(b) Bacterium crossreferences periplasm. We *can* run all existing
entries (again descriptions only) against the new term. It takes a few
seconds. I intend to put this in as default as well - for entries which
have not been authenticated by the curator. (If the new definition is
dubious or incorrect, then it might lower the value of the existing one.)

(c) Bacterium is in another ESTABLISHED glossary. It's no problem to run
periplasm against this glossary - the only problem is knowing that it exists.
We cannot do this automatically since the author has to specify the
discipline. E.g. if you write of "well defined domains" you may wish to
mark this up against proteins OR against "domain name server" !!

However, if bacterium refers to periplasm, the curator will have
to be notified and decide whether to matk this up.

> should we add it as an URL or not?

I don't think so. i think that AUTHORS SHOULD USE WHATEVER TECHNICAL
IS AS SELF-CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE. Thus, if you wrote about periplasm
and mentioned bacterium, you would make aplaceholder for bacterium and do
it as soon as possible, or put it on a project list.


> --Cornelius.

Peter Murray-Rust | "Nothing exists except atoms and empty | space; all else is opinion" (Democritos).
Protein Structure Group, Glaxo Group Research, Greenford, MIDDX, UB6 0HE, UK