[BioSQL-l] ontology for transitive closure table

[Aaron J Mackey]

It seemed to me that we needed this field in the path table for the same
reason we needed it in the relationship table, to ensure that we know the
namespace under which this path is defined (which may be a different
namespace under which the relationships themselves are defined).  This
gives one the ability to have multiple transitive closure graphs in the
same table, "typed" by namespace.

Maintenance of these graphs is left as an exercise to the reader (but
DBIx::Graph is coming to a CPAN to near you).

-Aaron

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> I just realized that apparently we also have the ontology (namespace)
> in the term_path table (the transitive closure table for term
> relationships).
>
> I suggest we remove this column from the path table (it will remain on
> the relationship table). The problem is if you leave it there how do
> you populate it if you encounter different namespaces along a path.
>
> Matthew, would you have a problem with this? I believe we even said in
> Singapore we don't put this on the path table didn't we?
>
> 	-hilmar
>

-- 
 Aaron J Mackey
 Pearson Laboratory
 University of Virginia
 (434) 924-2821
 amackey at virginia.edu