Standardized Term Names

[Midori Harris]

Hi Alex,

Unless you have any reason to object, this should be cc'd to the GO 
mailing list.

> I'm concerned by recent changes performed to 
> "standardize" term names.  In particular, I am 
> dismayed by the altering of many "cell 
> differentiation" terms to end with the term "cell 
> differentiation" despite that fact that the word 
> used for the cell type in question in many cases 
> actually includes a suffix that means or implies 
> "cell."
> 
> Thus, instead of "lymphocyte differentiation" we 
> now have "lymphocyte cell differentiation," and 
> instead of "adipocyte differentiation" we now 
> have "adipocyte cell differentiation," et cetera. 
> These modified term names are redundant phrases, 
> in other words, bad English.

I thoroughly agree.

> 
> Furthermore, the terms in question are all is-a 
> children of GO:0030154 cell differentiation, so 
> logically they are already types of "cell 
> differentiation" whether or not the phrase "cell 
> differentiation" is part of the term name or not. 
> This is a fundamental feature of the DAG 
> structure of the GO, and there is no need to 
> recapitulate the structure of the graph within 
> term names themselves, particularly when the 
> result is grammatically faulty.

It is not necessarily a problem for a term to have 'cell differentiation'
in its name -- in many cases we do deliberately put a small amount of
information in term names that is, strictly speaking, redundant with
parentage. This is so that a term will make sense if it is displayed 
alone, without the context of its parents (as many web pages, including 
MODs, do).

As long as the term name is not inherently redundant, the presence of
'cell differentiation' is acceptable. So 'garland cell differentiation' is
OK, but 'adipocyte cell differentiation' is not.

Midori