Comments on: RNA-Spot Data table

[strambc]

• Consider changing the name of SpotID here to a more spcific terms such as RNASpotID (not to confuse with DNASpotID)

The following items are missing and I think they would be useful to have:

• The description present in lines 9-10 from the google-sheet
  -- TO-DO
• The description present in lines 34-35 from the google-sheet
  -- TO-DO

The following items are missing and might need to be removed from google sheet:

• The note present in line 53 in the google-sheet

[andreacosolo]

The only remaining item in this list is the proposal to rename Spot_ID in the RNA table (a breaking change that could be bundled with others that we are considering).
My initial thought is that ultimately this is a Spot with X, Y and Z coordinates, similar to DNA spots and others. I expect there could be certain operations that could be performed on spots that do not care whether it comes from RNA, DNA or other sources. Additionally, the RNA identity is well expressed in the table. Therefore, I'd suggest to keep as is.

[andreacosolo]

Decision

1. Let's keep it as is: Spot_ID.
2. Let's clarify in the docs that Spot_ID needs to be unique across both core table (DNA spots) and rna table (RNA spots). As a reminder, uniqueness of identifiers is required across one experiment (an entire set of core + additional tables, for one replicate).

Rationale

1. A spot is a spot (RNA, DNA or others). Any pipeline that works with spots in general should be applicable to this table too.
2. Spot-related tables (spot quality, spot biological data, spot demultiplexing) are generic and could be used to describe RNA spots too.
3. RNA spots can be associated with traces or cells, but not with single DNA spots (double-check this). Therefore, having a Spot_ID column in the rna table is not ambiguous.