Changes between Version 24 and Version 25 of PhyloWS_workgroup

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
2008/02/12 15:15:54 (11 years ago)
Author:
czmasek
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • PhyloWS_workgroup

    v24 v25  
    2626  * Cons: If using an (presumably opaque) identifier for OTUs, one ought to be able to expect that the same combination of sequence ID, taxon name (where one often implies the other, unless sequence ID is really an ambiguous gene name), and additional metadata (such as allele, population sample, etc) results in the same identifier, in essence necessitating an OTU identifier registry, or a common algorithm for constructing the identifier (which would then no longer be opaque). A standardized encoding mechanism would need to be widely supported and adopted. 
    2727 
    28 * We also need to be able to ossociate (typed) data with tree branches 
     28 * We also need to be able to ossociate (typed) data with tree branches 
    2929  * The obvious example are branch lengths 
    3030  * But we usually also have (possibly multiple) support values associated with tree branches