[BioSQL-l] more consistency

[Yves Bastide]

Aaron J Mackey wrote:
> 
> Ahh yes, I see: the ontology_term table name turning into simply "term";
> hmm, not so sure about that.  I was thinking more of all the
> "ontology_term_id" foreign keys sprinkled about.  But to be a true bugbear
> about consistency, I think I'd have to alter my proposal to the much more
> verbose: a) change ontology_dbxref to ontology_term_dbxref and b) change
> seqfeature's source_term_id to source_ontology_term_id (and
> type_ontology_term_id)
> 
> But the ontology/term nomenclature isn't so bad if you consider it a
> mirror of biodatabase/bioentry (i.e. it's not
> biodatabase/biodatabase_bioentry).  So there you have it, two opposing
> arguments for two distinct proposals.  Discuss.
> 

As a frequent user of SQL at the console, I vote for "term" :-)

> -Aaron
> 

By the way, a rationale for the Singapore changes would be great for us 
users. E. g., why the split between ontology and (ontology_)term?  Why 
do reference use dbxref (as a one to one relationship, so one cannot 
store both Pubmed and Medline ids)? Etc.


Regards,

yves