[BBF Standards] Two separate standards

[Deepak Chandran]

Hello standards group,

 From all the standards discussion, I think that there are two separate 
standards for parts. If this is the case, then it should be made explicit.

The first type of standard is for atomic parts (better word needed?) 
such as promoters, rbs, etc. (that cannot be broken down further). The 
"standards" for these parts is simply a list of characteristics. For 
example, a promoter would have its sequence and Jason-units as its 
characteristic feature. RBS would have sequence and some other units. 
The list of characteristic features are probably best if developed by 
experimentalists -- the question to ask is: what is it that makes this 
promoter unique?
Sequence information is definitely needed for atomic parts.

The second type of standard is for composite parts (better word?) such 
as iGEM projects. I do not think that the sequence for composite parts 
is needed -- if we know the atomic parts that make up this composite 
part, then we can easily determine the sequence. What is needed is the 
order in which the atomic parts are arranged on the plasmid and the 
circuit-diagram that explains the mechanism of the part. Someone should 
be able to take a composite parts and replace some of the atomic parts 
just like upgrading a computer by replacing the RAM.

One can wonder whether things like protein domains or fusion proteins 
are atomic or composites. I think the question is whether the part is 
modular (i.e. whether it can be taken apart and reconstructed using 
slightly different components).

In summary:
A language is needed for composite parts.  (sequence not needed)
A list of characteristics is needed for atomic parts. (sequence needed)
   
If there is disagreement on this, please let me know why, so that I can 
eliminate my confusion. If there is agreement, then perhaps we should 
make this fact explicit and categorize our proposals to one of the two. 
We can make more directed progress that way.

By the way, this categorization is not meant to disturb the 
part/device/system hierarchy.

Ralf, I think that you language makes more sense if it is for composite 
parts, because you would need more descriptions for an atomic part. I 
will comment on that later.

--Deepak