It also seems like it would be worth breaking up data source a bit further to into the other things that Padraig mentioned (instead of just leaving a text description).
Data Source Type:
- derived calculation or inference
- other data source type entries that were involved
- a description of the derivation
- gist link?
- experimental data
- source <- ??? not sure how to define this in a "nice" way - public DB, lab, ?
- published? <- note, the data values might not be explicitly published but the data set itself might be, it would be good to decide which goes
- publication source <- reference to above data type if published is true
These could also be an array:
neuron x resting membrane potential:
1) -80 mV - publication 1
- publication 4
2) -85 mV - publication 2
3) -83 mV - publication 3
This of course gets more complicated if instead you have:
neuron x resting membrane potential at temp 2 (where temp 2 is not "normal")
Anyways, I'm getting a bit carried away but I very much agree with Padraig's sentiments.