[BBF Standards] To expand Reshma's comment / contamination and enforcement [Re: data exchange issue 1: Abstraction]

[Ralph Santos]

Reshma mentions a point in passing that's worth emphasizing, that right 
now even if there are other rules which are supposed to be in effect, as 
a defacto matter right now basically anything with a part number is 
called a part.  The fact that these parts exist at all in the registry 
undermines your assertion that there are rules of part definition, 
because even if you were to state them so that everyone can see them, 
there's no actual enforcement of the rule.

Let me make it clear my intent is not to diminish what the parts 
registry has done to this point.  Without the registry we'd have nothing 
to talk about.  However, for a standard to be successful it's more than 
sitting down some rules, it's defining rules both to support the 
activities of a community and supporting the realization of those rules 
with tools and practices that help people to comply with those rules.  
That means communicating those rules, making sure they comply with those 
aspects of existing practice you want to support and expand, and 
sometimes it might mean discouraging or culling things which undermine 
those rules.

Again, if you can post somewhere on the wiki what rules parts are 
currently supposed to observe for the benefit of the discussion and send 
me a link, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
---ralf


Randy Rettberg wrote:
>
> There are also errors in the Registry. Parts are defined to NOT have  
> biobrick ends on their sequence.
> If they do it is an error. Also, full plasmids consisting of a  
> plasmid backbone and a part are also errors.
> Composite parts that are entered as basic parts are also errors, but  
> necessary until we support a wider
> variety of scars.
>
> Randy Rettberg
>