[Bioperl-l] AnnotationCollectionI and SeqFeatureI changes
cjm at fruitfly.org
Tue Nov 23 17:41:10 EST 2004
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Allen Day wrote:
> > While it "works", I don't see why it had to be done this way; I'd
> > prefer a solution that didn't involve changing the definition of
> > Bio::SeqFeatureI (at least not yet). Further, your "deprecations" seem
> > to indicate that you simply want Bio::SeqFeatureI to go away entirely,
> > and have us treat everything as an annotation collection (which may or
> > may not have a location on a sequence). Is this the agreed-upon way of
> > the future? What are you gaining, besides forcing my fingers to learn
> > get_Annotations($tag) instead of get_tag_values($tag)?
> you've got the gist of it. i want features to be AnotatableI, not be
> AnnotationCollectionI themselves. the main payoffs i see here are:
>  consistency amongst annotated objects. why should SeqFeatureI do
> things differently?
>  possibility of strong annotation typing (e.g.
> Bio::Annotation::OntologyTerm instead of a plaintext string). this is the
> main reson driving the changes.
I'm all for using ontologies for metadata and strong typing within
bioperl, but I'm concerned that this is done right, and in such a way that
it has minimal impact on the complexity and memory footprint of bioperl.
I think that if you are edging us in the direction of  you should come
up with a document describing your plan. I know this goes against the
bioperl extreme programming ethos of "code first, ask questions later" but
I'm quite concerned about this.
More information about the Bioperl-l