[Bioperl-l] *major* error in genbank parser or am i just insane?

[Ewan Birney]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> For the risk of becoming obnoxious, I reiterate that there are 2 
> possibilities for genbank feature table locations to express reverse 
> strand joins, and their semantics (how the seq is obtained for the 
> feature) are /not/ the same. You can't collapse this all into one 
> and expect genbank to be roundtripped. If you do collapse it, I'd 
> double check that the semantics is preserved correctly.


Well... so... I'm curious - what is the difference in semantics between
the two ways from your reading it (I know they are written out
differently, but in what way would you *process* them differently...)


I can't think of anything...


> 
> The problem is that biosql is already out-of-sync here with bioperl 
> as well as genbank: both parent /and/ sublocations have a strand 
> attribute ...
> 

But is this just random cruft from Genbank/EMBL that they didn't realise
when they designed it or something deeper?