Not many of you responded to Peter's last email of 2Feb95. Perhaps the email
deserves further explanation. So, here are some comments to see if you agree
or disagree:
> I think we have to subdivide this further, as in:
> chemical.molform
> chemical.molwt
> chemical.smiles
> chemical.2d
> chemical.3d
>
> organism.latin
> organism.english
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wondered what organisms had to do with protein structure. In fact
organisms probably relate to OTHER glossaries which maybe based on ours. The
point here is further structure will help retreival and consistency. A note
of caution though, we should try to keep glossaries simple. Any comment?
> Within each glossary the curator will select those terms which can or
> must be filled in. This will be done through forms and will much
> increase the consistency. It also leads to much easier indexing and
> searching.
For example, protein structure needs uniqid, name, description, indexing
terms filled in. Any other fields can be filled in when needed. *If* we had
an enzyme only subject area, then EC number may also be mandatory etc.
> I also think I will hack the *.dat to be human-writable! At present it's
> OK but breaks if humans edit it. Humans should always come before
> machines.
As a curator, it's pretty frustrating not to edit the contents easily. I've
had several emails asking me to edit files so I know you also want to edit
contents. Do you have any suggestions for easy editing?
Lesley West for the PPS glossary team
PS.Sorry I missed seeing you at the biomoo party! There was only one person
around who wasn't asleep when I logged in :-(