[BBF Standards] Questions about functional composition, functional definition, data exchange

[Raik Gruenberg]

Following Ralph's and Barry's mail, I've sub-devided the data model section into 
4 sub-topics -- Please have a look at:
http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical#What_is_the_data_model_needed_to_describe_a_biobrick.3F

The idea is to tackle the problem in stages:
     * 1 minimal Biobrick information
     * 2 Biobrick classification
     * 3 Characterization
     * 4 Further annotation

Point 1 should be relatively straightforward to decide on and would cover the 
basic needs for sending around and assembling Biobricks. I would aim to have a 
draft ready for the Seattle meeting. Point 2 may be already slightly more tricky 
but, again, we should try to have a draft for Seattle.
Point 3 and 4 will probably need some more discussion. Here it may be more 
important to have some obvious examples and then agree on a procedure for 
evolving the model over time (technology permitting).

Does that sound reasonable?

Raik

Barry Canton wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
> 
> You bring up some interesting topics that I'd like to follow-up on
> (disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of the BBa_F2620 datasheet).
> 
> As you suggest, the objective of the BBa_F2620 datasheet was to
> describe the device in a manner that facilitates its reuse with other
> parts/devices.  As a result, the data on the sheet is heavily
> influenced by the kinds of data found on a typical engineering
> datasheet.  In our experience, typical engineering datasheets describe
> -
> 
> 1. Device definition and where the device may be used.
> 2. Static device behavior
> 3. Dynamic device behavior
> 4. Device compatibility (with other devices, environmental conditions etc.)
> 5. Device reliability
> 6. Power requirements of the device
> 
> In our estimation, those six items are also suitable to describe a
> wide range of biological devices (and can be found in some form on the
> BBa_F2620 datasheet).  The exact characteristics for each item may
> vary between device families of course (e.g. linearity of static
> response for sensors, static gain for amplifiers/inverters etc.)
> 
> Our early list of six items is likely to be either insufficient or
> overly detailed depending on how people actually use biological
> devices in practice.  Hence, there is a role for the BBF technical
> standards group in specifying the actual set of important data
> characteristics for a range of devices and users.  However, standard
> setting is hard to do until we have a large body of data on the
> behavior of devices alone and in combination.  Hopefully through the
> work of iGEM teams and research labs that data will be forthcoming
> soon.
> 
> Go forth and measure! (and share the data in a standard machine-readable format)
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> 

-- 
________________________________

Dr. Raik Gruenberg
http://www.raiks.de/contact.html
________________________________