Open jakebeal opened 3 years ago
We need to be extremely clear about which things we are naming and which we are building
Agreed! And there is a terminology divide here. I'm not advocating for this but iGEM currently uses different terms for these, and they also do not map fully (basic part = functional device, physical part + package = sample).
there is a terminology divide here
It sounds like it would be useful to create a dictionary of terms we want to use moving forward, so we're all in agreement about what we're talking about (i.e., what's a functional unit? what's a functional device? how do we define sample?). If we can create a short list of terms we need to define and start working on those definitions, then we can make the documentation / files that we're working in more clear.
Views of a part:
Once a part has been assembled with others, that composite part will have the same four views as well.
In some cases views will be the same, in others they will not
Currently the distribution is providing the first two views.
A proposal for this has been made in: https://github.com/SynBioDex/SEPs/blob/master/sep_055.md
Currently, when we say "J23101", the meaning is often muddled between three different notions:
We need to be extremely clear about which things we are naming and which we are building. I would suggest an analogy to the old TTL Databook, which included the same functional devices (e.g., Quadruple 2-input positive NAND gates was device 00) into many different families of packages with different characteristics (e.g., SN5400, SN75LS00).
My propose is as follows: