AllenInstitute / AllenInstitute/ConnectsCommonConnectivity
Should feature sets/definitions be project-scoped?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Jupyter Notebook
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 1
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Question: the long-term goal is common features across modalities/projects, so feature sets/definitions should ideally not be hard project-scoped — though most sets will in practice be project-specific. With merge-scoped writes (#13) the write-side cost of project_id is ~zero (just part of a merge key, no clobber risk). Remaining concerns: (a) dataitem_id is only unique per project, so an unscoped measurement row is ambiguous in joins; (b) namespacing for genuinely shared sets — sentinel project (e.g. project_id="common") vs optional project_id on CellFeatureSet/CellFeatureDefinition.
Informs: #8, #13.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read the questions and constraints in issues #8 and #13, which this issue informs. Decide whether feature sets and definitions should retain project_id, including how shared sets are namespaced and how dataitem_id ambiguity is handled; done means a documented scope decision that resolves these alternatives.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- database
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100