completeness approach

[only1chunts]

Current term details

Term name - completeness approach
Term ID - [if known] MIXS:0000071
Structured comment name - compl_appr
Definition - The approach used to determine the completeness of a given SAG or MAG, which would typically make use of a set of conserved marker genes or a closely related reference genome. For UViG completeness, include reference genome or group used, and contig feature suggesting a complete genome
Expected value - enumeration  
Value syntax -[marker gene\|reference based\|other]
Example - other: UViG length compared to the average length of reference genomes from the P22virus genus (NCBI RefSeq v83)
Preferred unit - 
Package(s) - MIUVIG (C) and MISAG/MIMAG (X)

Suggested update(s) I think the completeness approach should be considered (X) expected for all genome assemblies (MIGS) not just the mimag and misag. The use of BUSCO or CEGMA is a reference-based approach.

Term name - completeness approach
Term ID - [if known] MIXS:0000071
Structured comment name - compl_appr
** Definition - The approach used to determine the completeness of a given genomic assembly, which would typically make use of a set of conserved marker genes or a closely related reference genome. For UViG completeness, include reference genome or group used, and contig feature suggesting a complete genome
** Expected value - text
Value syntax -[marker gene | reference based | other]
Example - other: UViG length compared to the average length of reference genomes from the P22virus genus (NCBI RefSeq v83)
Preferred unit - 
Package(s) - MIUVIG (C) and MISAG/MIMAG (X),  migs_eu (X), migs_ba (X),  migs_pl (X)

Additional context There are 3 related terms "completeness score"(MIXS:0000069), "completeness software"(MIXS:0000070) and "completeness approach" (MIXS:0000071). If one is present its highly likely all 3 should be present.

[ramonawalls]

The expected value cannot be an enum, based on the example. Basically, anything where we allow "other" has to be a text, in order to validate. Are you okay with me making that change, @only1chunts ?

[lschriml]

No changes needed.