[Bioperl-l] BioSQL or chado

[Steve Mathias]

I guess it depends somewhat on your requirements.  BioSQL and chado seem
to be the two obvious choices.  Not being terribly familiar with
GMOD/chado, my impression is that biosql is the more mature and stable
of the two.  Two others that I looked at recently when pondering the
same dilema were GUS (http://www.gusdb.org/) and the Ensembl schema (or
parts of it, anyway).

For whatever it's worth -- about $0.02 ;-), I chose BioSQL.

Steve

>>>>> "Nat" == Nathan \(Nat\) Goodman <Nathan> writes:

Nat> I'm thinking about converting our homegrown relational schema to
Nat> one of the emerging BioPerl-friendly "standard" schemas.  I'm
Nat> looking for something that (1) works now, and (2) is likely to be
Nat> popular in the BioPerl world for some time to come.

Nat> I think the choices are BioSQL and chado.  Are there others?  Is
Nat> one of these the obvious right choice?

Nat> Thanks, Nat

Nat> _______________________________________________ Bioperl-l mailing
Nat> list Bioperl-l at portal.open-bio.org
Nat> http://portal.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

-- 
(    Stephen L. Mathias, Ph.D.                     (                    (
 )   Office of Biocomputing                         )  s m a t h i a s   )
(    University of New Mexico School of Medicine   (   @ p o b l a n o  (
 )   MSC08 4560                                     )  . h e a l t h .   )
(    915 Camino de Salud, NE                       (   u n m . e d u    (
 )   Albuquerque, NM 87131-5196                     )                    )