Dan, > IMHO, I think no one datamodel can / should / would or could be set in > place, rather every biologist makes their own data model either from > scratch, by combining other datamodels in to larger models and/or with > available ontologies. Your statement hardly helps the state of things... which is a disaster from an integrative and service perspective. Aside from issues of data quality, it is current very difficult to make full and accurate database cross references, nevermind doing proper updates where everybody has their own accession space. If each person has their own data model, then it makes it extremely difficult to share information without having to write additional code to map your object model to mine. However, given a standard way of representing a gene and all associated annotation, then I could use your annotation immediately without having to do the tedious mapping If you only need a particular aspect of a grander data model for your purposes, then just use that part. If you need to extend a data model, for whatever reason, then there should be a process (and XML/ASN.1 based data models are fully extensible). However, experience says that once you start building a 'new'/'better suited' model, you'll end up re-inventing a well-thought-out model. Having standardized, even peer-reviewed, data models promotes a better computing environment and makes it easier to make advances in science. For most of us, Science, not technology or programming, is the ultimate pursuit. -=Michel=-