Peter_Urka@ub.cc.umich.edu (08/22/90)
Skulason has indicated the great lack of uniformity in designating viruses very clearly. I suggest that method IV - Size of virus, holds the most promise. We can look upon method IV as a simple checksum. However, it is unsuited for the job in that there could be great confusion, as viruses have a fairly good chance (especially variants) of being nearly the same size. Therefore, a checksum algorithm, which can look at the way the virus is constructed, rather than the length of it's construction would be a suitable answer. The requirements it must meet are 1) a large range to avoid duplicate assignments and 2) a fairly simple algorithm, that can be published and understood easily. Thus, unambiguous, dull sounding, and names accepted world-wide would be easy. Just isolate the virus code, run it through the algorithm, and presto! I also suggest that the year of occurence be appended onto the identification number in order that it would make it easier to track the spread of the virus through time, providing easy measures of virulence and population size. Peter Urka@ub.cc.umich.edu