Hi Tobias,


> Hi everyone,
>
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:49 +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote: 
>>
>>
>> 2)  Does the proposal means we abandon the API that allows to retrieve
>> feature values, given a compound and feature identifiers ?
>
> Another question: Does the proposal imply that features are coupled now
> to datasets? That would mean, that we cannot have a compound with
> features stored, that is not in a dataset? Or am I missing something? 
>

This is what was left without discussion (IMHO). I am not sure this is a good
option, there are lot of compound properties which are independent of any
dataset.

>
> If I calculate a descriptors with the new API...do I update the dataset
> or do I create a new one? The latter might lead to a huge number of
> datasets and maybe even redundancy. 

Exactly.  In addition, it will make more difficult combining features for the
same compounds from different datasets, which is crucial for some use cases as
read across.


>From my point of view compounds are separare entities, compounds have features
and datasets are purely for denoting subsets of compounds and features.  Thus
my disagreement with the proposal to abandon feature API.

>
> I have to admit that removing the feature API has led to some confucion
> on my/our side...I hope this clears up as soon as the ontology API is
> there, which should contain a follow up for the feature_definitions and
>
> references if I am understanding things right. (and something for the
> algorithm ontology). Did we set a time frame for that (I am not sure
> anymore...it was a long meeting)?

There is a scheduled meeting at Friday.

Best regards,
Nina
>