engeje@UTS.UNI-C.DK (Jacob Engelbrecht) (11/30/90)
In the current release of the GenBank database (rel. 65) the old EMBL feature format is kept as untranslated comments instead of using the full information in the new format available in the current release of EMBL. Why ? -- Jacob Engelbrecht Department of Structural Properties of Materials The Technical University of Denmark Building 307 DK-2800 Lyngby Denmark phone: +45 42882222 ext. 3210 (operator) phone: +45 45931222 ext. 3210 (tone) fax: +45 45932399 e-mail: engel@uts.uni-c.dk
jeh%replicon@LANL.GOV (Jamie Hayden) (12/01/90)
Dear Dr. Engelbrecht, Historically, it has taken considerable effort to convert EMBL entries to GenBank entries. The most difficult point was the Feature Table, where different feature keys and editorial policies required large amounts of time. Because of the time investment, only certain features, those deemed the most important, were converted to GenBank format. The others were parked in the COMMENT so the information would still be available. At this point in the collaboration of the databanks, there is still a considerable amount of time and effort required to convert data from the EMBL flatfile format, albeit with a common feature table, to the relational database architecture. If it were a matter of flatfile conversions, the task would at this time be simplified. Now, however, we are working on a relational data exchange mechanism so that we will share the data at a more fundamental level. I hope this serves to answer your question. If not, do not hesitate to contact us either through the bulletin board, or directly. regards, Jamie Hayden Annotation Coordinator GenBank