larval development

[Jennifer I Clark]

Hi David,

Does the part_of relationship have to mean 'physically part_of' then? I 
was thinking that the developmental time frame during which larval 
development takes place is part of the post-embryonic developmental time 
frame. I have cc'd Chris in case he has any views on this. I checked, 
and the documentation on the web site doesn't stipulate one way or the 
other.

Thanks,

Jen

David Hill wrote:

> I would make it a is_a of post-embryonic development, not a part_of. 
> Post-embryonic specifies a time, not a structure. There is no such 
> thing as a "post embryo". However, it is important to separate out the 
> timing of things especially when they have specific phases in for 
> example the embryo, the larva and the adult.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> J Clark wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems to me that 'larval development' ; GO:0002164 ought to be a 
>> child of 'post-embryonic development' ; GO:0009791.
>>
>> Is there any reason why it is not? They are currently siblings under 
>> 'development'.
>>
>> If I was going to change this then should I make the relationship 
>> part_of, on the assumption that the terms represent
>>
>> 'larval development' [of an organism or entity]
>>
>> and
>>
>> 'post-embryonic development' [of an organism or entity]
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>