>> Yes I am aware of the some of the idiosyncrasies of the Ensembl Genomes >> naming conventions. But is there a reason that the DAS registry should be >> constrained by Ensembl Genomes? Could the Registry entry refer to a specific >> taxonomy iD and its corresponding entry in EG, despite EG using a different >> taxonomy ID? >> >> I'd like to be able to export our microarray designs and data via DAS for >> others to use (including EnsemblBacteria). This if for 16 or so species with >> multiple strains thereof. >> > > Just to say that I think we should get this as straight as we can; just to > state the obvious - EG is not trying to be deliberately complex here, it is > just that the concept of "one taxid == one species == one assembly series" > just > breaks down in bacteria.
Could it be treated as "one taxid == one strain == one assembly"? > I've brought in the three key people here on the EG side - Eugene (does the > web > side of this); Dan (main data production manager) and Paul Kersey (the EG PI) > - > some of them are on holiday now, but I suggest perhaps setting up a phone > conference (and/or Adam could you come for a visit?) to get this as straight > as > we can - I suspect there will both be short term fixes and more longer term > infrastructural fixes here. I'm happy to help any way I can. I am registered on the Ensembl developers workshop next month so could chat to you guys then? thanks adam _______________________________________________ DAS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/das
