feature relative_position versus parent.localization.normalized.x

[Todd Cameron]

This was tested with MicrobeJ 5.13p(1) and 5.13p(27).

For features, parent.localization.normalized.x yields data values (eg, plotted by density plot) consistent with what is plotted for sub cellular localization (eg, XYCellDensity) or by demographs. However, relative_position does not. If parent.localization.normalized.x is transformed by adding 1 and dividing the sum by 2, the data values either exactly match those of relative_position or they represent the same measurement from the wrong pole. In other words, sometimes the transformed parent.localization.normalized.x data will read 0.4, but relative position will read 0.6. 

Due to a lack of documentation, I'm not sure what relative position is supposed to represent, or if this is even a bug.