Closed AlasdairGray closed 5 years ago
Yes, all of them would apply to Gene as well, for instance. Moved to BioChemEntity now in the branch. Protein would have no properties now though, but hope that is not a problem.
On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:47, ljgarcia notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:
Yes, all of them would apply to Gene as well, for instance. Moved to BioChemEntity now in the branch. Protein would have no properties now though, but hope that is not a problem.
I don’t think that there is a hard and fast rule about when we move properties up to BioChemEntity but we do need to balance between:
Perhaps we should think about how many of the subtypes the property is applicable to.
Heriot-Watt University is The Times & The Sunday Times International University of the Year 2018
Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences. This email is generated from the Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes:
The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.
Several of the properties defined for
Protein
in the latest draft doc seem to me to be more generic than Protein. Could you verify that the following properties should not be moved up to BioChemEntity, and their definitions generalised?