You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
These comments from @tylenolncuff were on DT-6582. They are good comments and we need to address them, but they are out of scope for that issue.
It's hard to tell if it'll work without better content. The readme files have wonky formatting, but more importantly the readmes don't explain the nested approach. For example, I was picturing a readme in the top level Cell-Annotatio-and-Taxonomy folder that has words + figure to convey the nested approach, a la the AIT formats. That way people understand the building blocks model.
It's also important at each level what the format is (if there is one) for the aggregate view that level represents. For example, the Cell-Annotation-and-Taxonomy level should say "use an AIT file, which is an anndata file with these 5 elements... for each element's details, see here" and then you link into the lower-level building blocks.
If you look at the list of formats within schemas overall, it looks like a laundry list. How can we get that more organized? Either nested approach of species --> domain or domain --> species, or have a landing page that cuts across folders to help organize? This is important as you add more analyzed levels with taxonomies - the assigned metadata folder should be identical to the other metadata schemas, not just an alternative.
These comments from @tylenolncuff were on DT-6582. They are good comments and we need to address them, but they are out of scope for that issue.
It's hard to tell if it'll work without better content. The readme files have wonky formatting, but more importantly the readmes don't explain the nested approach. For example, I was picturing a readme in the top level Cell-Annotatio-and-Taxonomy folder that has words + figure to convey the nested approach, a la the AIT formats. That way people understand the building blocks model.
It's also important at each level what the format is (if there is one) for the aggregate view that level represents. For example, the Cell-Annotation-and-Taxonomy level should say "use an AIT file, which is an anndata file with these 5 elements... for each element's details, see here" and then you link into the lower-level building blocks.
If you look at the list of formats within schemas overall, it looks like a laundry list. How can we get that more organized? Either nested approach of species --> domain or domain --> species, or have a landing page that cuts across folders to help organize? This is important as you add more analyzed levels with taxonomies - the assigned metadata folder should be identical to the other metadata schemas, not just an alternative.