[BBF Standards] functional composition of BioBrick parts?

[Julius B. Lucks]

> On Sunday 27 January 2008, Drew Endy wrote:
>> At the November BBF workshop we expressed an interest in working
>> together on standard(s) that define how BioBrick parts function so
>> that, when two parts are combined, the resulting behavior of the
>> composite part is as expected, and not some surprising emergent
>> property.
>
> Interesting. This would seem to be challenging in light of the protein
> prediction competitions like CASP8, although accurate prediction  
> models
> seem to be developing. However, perhaps a more appropriate approach
> would be to define BioBricks such that there are various categories,
> such as "strict" and "unstrict" where 'strict' confirm to specific
> behavior definitions that have either been fully experimentally
> confirmed or based on sound theoretical models. Thoughts?
>
>

Perhaps there should be a hierarchy of interaction tests that parts  
are subjected to.  Parts in one category could be said to be in  
'strict' compliance with respect to parts of another category if  
there is no interaction with a representative part in that category.   
The compliance specification is then a list of categories, for each  
part, that the part can be used with.  Within categories, there could  
be some compliance tests to make sure they work with each other.

Basically some system to avoid having to do ~NxN/2 comparisons to  
test for compose-ability.

Julius