larval development

[Chris Mungall]

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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>