Standards Call 2021-05

Minutes

Extended discussion about keywords_study based on the initial request in #515. One of the key questions is whether we need to distinguish between presence/absence of data objects (e.g., a clone object) vs. presence/absence of features within an object (e.g., contains Ig rearrangements). Other questions were whether we should assign differnent meanings to has_ and contains_ prefixes and whether it would be worthwhile to have an additional keywords_data field within the Study object. Decisions:
- Use contains_clone_data and contains_rearrangement_data to denote object presence rather than the experimental protocol.
- Stick to contains_ for now, do not introduce has_ keywords.
- Do not introduce a new keywords_data field.
- Will revisit these decisions during the redesign of the DataProcessing object, which would also be suited to contain some of this information at a lower level.
We now moved the meeting minutes to a GitHub Wiki instead, which you will find here. Note that the Wiki only offers a very limited set of features and that we are using reST not Marksown. This will allow us to move the Wiki content to the official docs site, in case we get frustrated by the Wiki.
Please remember that we decided to move our next meeting on May 31 to June 14 to get back into an more evenly-spaced schedule with the ComRepo call. We will resume the four-week cycle after that.