Skip to content
Prev 11633 / 21312 Next

[Bioc-devel] Identical methods in two packages

On 09/14/2017 02:23 PM, Laurent Gatto wrote:
Right but a quite high-level one. Not because a function returns
some kind of object means the function should be considered *the* 
constructor for that object. For example the makeTxDb*() functions
in GenomicFeatures fetch stuff from the internet and return a TxDb
object. If instead we were using a TxDb() generic and methods for
doing this, then TxDb() would be considered *the* constructor.

What I'm trying to say is that right now Ontology() is seen as *the*
constructor only because of its name. If you rename it something like
fetchOntology(), then it won't be considered to be *the* constructor
anymore ;-) It's really a situation where "l'habit fait le moine".
Yeah, but the Gene Ontology folks also call this a sub-ontolgies,
or just an Ontology depending of the mood of the day :-/
Nice! Was wondering if you considered using something like
fetchTerms(go) instead of terms(go) so the user gets a heads-up that
this will download (a lot of) stuff from the network and that it might
take a while. After calling go <- Ontogy("go") one could get the false
impression that everything is now inside the Ontogy object 'go'.
Of course using something like fetchTerms() instead of terms() would
make more sense if Ontogy() was also replaced with something like
fetchOntology().
No problem. Thanks for understanding that unfortunately we are stuck
with Ontology() because of more than 10 years of AnnotationDbi history
and hundreds of annotation packages.

BTW and FWIW it seems that the ontoCAT package is also doing something
with ontologies. It has Classification and DataRepresentation in its
biocViews field. Would these terms also be appropriated for rols?

Cheers,
H.