Closed sjackman closed 8 years ago
Somewhat related, ABySS includes support for ASQG. It currently uses XC
for the sum k-mer coverage of a contig. May I use KC
instead? Or more generally, can we declare all segment/edge properties of GFA are also valid in ASQG?
See http://lh3.github.io/2014/07/23/first-update-on-gfa/#comment-1574499562
Hi Shaun,
I want to support GFA but I've had very little coding time recently. I'll try to get around to it but it won't be for a few weeks at the earliest. Sorry.
For your second question, I'm fine with KC
and in general will support GFA properties in ASQG.
I don't expect many naming clashes between ASQG and GFA. There are few reserved tags in ASQG anyway. I have an internal build of SGA that outputs CG
and PI
for the CIGAR string and percent identity.
No worries. It's not a big rush, but I am keen to see other implementations of GFA. GFA is the closest that we've come as a community to a standard for which we have some agreement. I really want to see it adopted. The more implementations of GFA, the more likely that is to happen.
Why PI and not NM (number of mismatches)?
I used PI for legacy reasons - it was the bit of information I needed to pass down the pipeline. I'm not tied to this tag and will change it if NM is the standard.
Well there's no GFA standard yet—it's the wild west out here—but at least NM is a SAM standard.
NM i Edit distance to the reference, including ambiguous bases but excluding clipping
The GFA spec has more-or-less stabilized: https://github.com/pmelsted/GFA-spec
Hi, Jared. Any plans to implement support for GFA in SGA? The next release of ABySS will include support for GFA.