doelz at comp.bioz.unibas.ch (Reinhard Doelz) writes:
>Secondly, I love GOPHER because of its simplicity. And I hate GOPHER because
>it gets me only >quite< the information I need, not the 'real' one. Take
>the example of sequence retrieval - Certainly booleans and whatever tricks
>make it possible to do rather effective searches. Still, list refinement
>is not possible, neither linkage to other databases etc. Therefore, looking
>at the biology GOPHERs, it might be worth to investigate the underlying
>search engines, and come up with more specific tools than full-text search.
I would like to second Reinhard feelings about Gopher ... I too think
it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I must take the
results I obtain with a grain of salt ... and this is *specially* true
for sequence retrievals. The different gopher whole do not tell us
how up to date they keep their database (I must admit I never asked
this to anybody) but I know of examples where simple unique words did
*not* pick up sequences that I know are there. The Indexing isn't
always up to snuff, or _maybe_ not up to date? I don't know.
I am sure people are looking into this ... day in and out, and I want
to state (again, and again, and again) that if there is ever anything
which will bring a recalcitrant bench scientist to a computer ...
What I still rely on ... and is not a gopher tool, but Thon de Boer's
"getentry" utility ... It fgoes to the mother of all databases, and
gets me what I want (not always in the right format mind you ;-)
| B.F. Francis Ouellette * francis at monod.biol.mcgill.ca *
|| "Je cherche a` comprendre" Jacques Monod