[Go] documentation for the new 'Experimental' evidence code.

[Mike Cherry]

On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Chris Mungall wrote:
>
> As a possible short term measure: what about allowing >3 letters?
> We'd need to give a little lead time for people who have hardcoded a
> <=3 letter assumption in software and database schemas, but this is
> relatively trivial compared to switch to a full blown ontology. We
> could then call EXP "EXPT". Or "EXPERIMENT". Or how about
> "Experiment" even. So it's not a "code". Does that matter? It does
> have the advantage of being in the same language that the majority of
> scientists (outside the GO cognoscenti) use.
>>

I could go either way, however having a full and short name could be  
useful.  We already have things like FB = FlyBase, and GB = GenBank.   
The longer name provides clarity and the short name could be around to  
provide backward compatibility.  If we do go down the road of allowing  
the longer "Experiment" then I feel we should do this for all the  
evidence codes.  After all I understood EXP(T) was to be used for a  
limited set of annotations, particularly Reactome that does not track  
experiment type.  Thus EXP(T) wouldn't be seen very often on most of  
our web interfaces.

-Mike