reproduction

[Jennifer I Clark]

Hi,

David and I have a proposal to present to the Development interest group.

I am editing some of the terms relating to plant development just now 
and they need to go under
a term along the lines of:
reproductive-structure development (sensu Magnoliophyta); GO:new

The structure that is currently there looks like this:

[i]biological_process ; GO:0008150
---[i]development ; GO:0007275
------[i]reproduction ; GO:0000003


I can't really put the new term under 'reproduction' since 
'reproduction' is not a purely developmental concept. I reckoned that it
would be good to move the term 'reproduction' under 'physiological 
process' and then make a new replacement term that covers the 
development associated with reproduction to be a child of development.

I wrote to check with David and he said:

"We thought about this many years ago and came up with the solution to 
have reproductive physiological process (GO:0050876). Maybe we should 
have reproduction as a parent node and then split it into reproductive 
physiological process (GO:0050876),  reproductive behavior (GO:0019098) 
and a new term reproductive developmental process. Each of these would 
have dual parentage under reproduction and physiological process, 
behavioral process and development."

So the proposed structure would look like this:


[i]biological_process ; GO:0008150
---[i]reproduction ; GO:0000003
------[p]reproductive developmental process ; GO:new
------[p]reproductive physiological process ; GO:0050876
------[p]reproductive behavior ; GO:0019098
---[i]development ; GO:0007275
------[i]reproductive developmental process ; GO:new
---[i]physiological process ; GO:0007582
------[i]reproductive physiological process ; GO:0050876
---------[i]organismal reproductive physiological process ; GO:new
---------[i]cellular reproductive physiological process ; GO:new
---[i]behavior ; GO:0007610
------[p]reproductive behavior ; GO:0019098

Would anybody have any objection to the implementation of this 
structure? If the development interest group are happy with this I'll 
also write to the go list since it involves changes to high level terms.

Thanks,

Jen