Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upDeprecated records #171
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hi all,
An option would be to introduce a tag, lets call it '[DEPRECATED]' and put it in the title. Because we want to limit the potential of breaking 3rd party clients we propose the tag like this:
make this deprecated:
The first field in the record title is free format and this change will most likely not break 3rd party clients. Treatment of deprecated records by MassBank: Of course its possible to introduce the reason for deprecation in the COMMENT section. I would appreciate your opinion... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I like this way of handling it in general ... I am just wondering if we should add another (non-compulsory) tag, so that it is not just in the title, as an alternative / in addition to the reason for deprecation in COMMENT. Reason being is that I for one do not often parse the TITLE field, but I would e.g. parse a "DEPRECATED" field if I want to check that nothing's deprecated ... (otherwise how would we detect it without parsing the title field)? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Alternative: make a systematic "COMMENT [DEPRECATED]" recommendation for adding the reasons. But then we may as well add an official tag ... it's also rare to parse the comments because they are free text and rather difficult to process automatically... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Potentially, deprecated records are not syntactically valid anymore. Hence, we can add every field we want.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@tsufz also made the point that we could/should document date of deprecation (I see you just added that), I'd suggest date first and prefer this:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
We should also add this to the Record Specification. With |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
If we add a new field like So the question here is: Do we want to force 3rd party software to be aware of our deprecation mechanism? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I guess that could be avoided by |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
meowcat
commented
May 3, 2019
•
Except for RMassBank, what software will be bothered by this? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Basically every piece of software which parses MassBank records. I guess that MoNA parses MassBank records from time to time or some scripts of scientists using MassBank records... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hi,
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I agree to 1, 2, and 4.
I think we should leave the records at the same place. This has the advantage that we can avoid to assign the same accession code two times, the assignment of the records to the contributors is very clear, and it is not necessary to move records. What is the rationale of moving deprecated records to a separate folder? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Agree with @Treutler re all points .... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hi, one more thought: one could remove (large) parts of the record,
where MassBank-web would render the git hash to point to I also had the idea to distinguish between "DEPRECATED", which should be interpreted as Yours, |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I don't think we should replace a record with a new one? Isn't that what versioning is meant to avoid? |
tsufz commentedApr 3, 2019
@schymane and me chatted a little bit about the handling of deprecated records. We agreed that those records should be tagged and not removed due to historical reasons. We suggest to move those records to a specific deprecated folder and than tagged with a deprecated tag which should be add to the tille like 13a-Hydroxylupanin; LC-ESI-ITFT; MS2; CE: 10%; R=15000; [M+H]+ (deprecated).
The tag could be and placed directly under the accession
Deprecated: This recorded was deprecated on date()
Should we give a comment why the record was deprecated (for learning reasons).