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

[Ralph Santos]

For my part, it seems quite reasonable.  I've taken the liberty of 
building on your edits to feather out "Biobrick Classification" into 
intrinsic and extrinsic classification and tried to cite illustrative 
examples (including some borrowed from Barry's comments).

Some of what I wrote overlaps with what Raik wrote about 
characterization, and that was actually intentional, though I'm not very 
satisfied with what I wrote to resolve the situation.

I was thinking of cases which probably won't actually be encountered for 
quite a while, in particular:

* Forming queries for functional performance regardless of the presence 
of empirical findings, or negative queries regarding functional 
performance, i.e. "Return me biobricks where specificity is unreported"
* Dealing with biobricks where multiple findings have been reported, and 
one has or wishes to choose a performance parameter of record, i.e. the 
"X" lab has made the definitive measure on the Hill Coefficient of 
Biobrick Y.

This may be overthinking things at this stage.

---ralf


Raik Gruenberg wrote:
> 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?