On 2013-02-20 17:32, Schalkwyk, Leonard wrote:
Is this not just an indication that normalize is now a poor choice of a function name?
If the package authors called the functions "normalize", this means either:
1- at least some of the package authors have named a function performing an action that is inappropriately described as "normalize"
2- all functions "normalize" do perform an action that can be described with that verb
Without more details, I'd vote for 2.
(more below)
LEo
On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:14, Wolfgang Huber wrote:
Hi
is it clear that all these different functions (methods) share similar semantics and enough (conceptually) of their interface?
Playing the semantic and concept police would come after defining things like ontologies of data processing; I am not sure this should be a priority.
I'd see working out a minimal common signature that keeps everyone going with a minimal fuss come first.
Wouldn't the implication be that preemptively every possible string of characters should already be defined as a generic function in BiocGenerics?
No. Otherwise this would probably also mean that R's S4 system should in fact define all possible strings as generics, which by extension would also mean that generic functions do not need to be explicitly declared: since all possible generics would be declared, it is more practical to implicitly assume any given function has already generic declared. S4 has notions about implicit generic functions; a starting point is the man page for setGeneric().
Best wishes
Wolfgang
Il giorno Feb 20, 2013, alle ore 11:04 AM, Laurent Gatto <lg390 at cam.ac.uk> ha scritto:
On 19 February 2013 22:44, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fhcrc.org> wrote:
Hi Laurent, and maintainers of packages with a normalize() function,
On 02/15/2013 04:28 AM, Laurent Gatto wrote:
A quick (and incomplete) manual search using
http://search.bioconductor.jp/ suggest the following usage of
normalize:
As a function:
xps::normalize
codelink::normalize
EBImage::normalize
diffGeneAnalysis::normalize
Defining a generic and methods:
oligo::normalize
flowCore::normalize
MSnbase::normalize
isobar::normalize
and
several normalize\.[*+] functions
Would it be reasonable to add a normalize generic definition to
BiocGenerics? The generic definitions in the above packages differ,
however.
Sounds good to me.
However, since the various normalize() functions have different
signatures, we need to agree on what the signature of the generic
in BiocGenerics should be.
Here is a summary of the situation:
** xps package: normalize() is an ordinary function with the
following arg list:
normalize(xps.data, filename=character(0), filedir=getwd(),
tmpdir="", update=FALSE, select="all", method="mean",
option="transcript:all", logbase="0", exonlevel="",
refindex=0, refmethod="mean", params=list(0.02, 0),
add.data=TRUE, verbose=TRUE)
The package also defines normalize.constant(), normalize.lowess(),
normalize.quantiles(), normalize.supsmu(), which are also ordinary
functions (not S3 methods), and have similar but slightly
different arg lists.
** codelink package: Ordinary function with the following args:
normalize(object, method="quantiles", log.it=TRUE,
preserve=FALSE, weights=NULL, verbose=FALSE)
** EBImage package: Ordinary function with the following args:
normalize(x, separate=TRUE, ft=c(0, 1))
** diffGeneAnalysis package: Ordinary function with the following
args:
normalize(rawdata, numSlides, ctrl, expm, ctrlbg=0.30,
expmbg=0.30)
** deepSNV package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(test, control, ...)
** isobar package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(x, f=median, target="intensity", exclude.protein=NULL,
use.protein=NULL, f.doapply=TRUE, log=TRUE,
channels=NULL, na.rm=FALSE, per.file=TRUE, ...)
** affy package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(object, ...)
** flowCore package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(data, x, ...)
** MSnbase package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(object, method, ...)
** oligo package: S4 generic with the following args:
normalize(object, method=normalizationMethods(),
copy=TRUE, subset=NULL,
target='core', verbose=TRUE, ...)
So it looks like the greatest common factor is normalize(x, ...).
Not too surprising for a generic that covers such a wide range of
related but slightly different concepts / algorithms.
One technical difficulty though is that, even though almost all these
functions seem to take an S4 object as their 1st arg, some of them
don't:
(a) For EBImage::normalize(), 'x' can be an ordinary array in
addition to an Image object.
(b) For diffGeneAnalysis::normalize(), 'rawdata' is an ordinary
matrix.
(c) For deepSNV::normalize(), 'test' can be an ordinary matrix
in addition to a deepSNV object.
(d) For oligo::normalize(), 'object' can be an ordinary matrix
in addition to a FeatureSet object.
So how can we disambiguate when the first arg is an ordinary matrix?
IMO normalize() should fail in that case i.e. no package should define
methods for ordinary arrays or matrices. Not ideal but better than the
current situation where what is returned depends on which package was
loaded last.
I could put normalize(x, ...) in BiocGenerics if nobody objects, but
that's all. I don't have time to fix the 10 packages that this change
will affect. However, I'd rather wait the beginning of the Bioc 2.13
devel cycle (April) for such a change. For some packages like
diffGeneAnalysis (which doesn't use S4 at all), that will probably
require a significant amount of changes since it will need to pass
the data to normalize in an S4 container instead of an ordinary matrix.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.