larval development

[J Clark]

Thanks Chris, I can see that the relationship could be is_a 
but I don't see why it can't be part_of. Is there a specific 
reason?

Thanks,

Jen

Chris Mungall wrote:

> is_a - because all instances of larval development are necessarily
> instances of post-embryonic development
> 
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Jennifer I Clark wrote:
> 
> 
>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
EMBL - European Bioinformatics Institute,
Gene Ontology Consortium,
and Wolfson College, Cambridge.
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~jclark/