larval development

[J Clark]

Hi Chris,

> I think basically because one thing being a direct part of another thing
> implies two distinct, distinguishable things. Nothing is a direct part of
> itself.
> 
> So if we agree that larval development is_a post-embryonic development,
> then it can't also be part_of

Here though we are talking about time periods where one may 
be a subset of the other, depending on interpretation of an 
unclear definition.

'post-embyonic development' describes the development that 
occurs in the post-embryonic phase, so it describes the 
development occuring between the end of the embryonic phase 
and death.

'larval development' describes the development that occurs 
during the larval phase which starts after the end of the 
embryonic phase and ends at the end of the larval phase. The 
end of the larval phase does not correspond with the end of 
the natural lifespan of the organism.

Therefore since the larval phase is part_of the 
post-embryonic phase I think of this as being a part_of 
relationship.

I think maybe the important thing is the definition of 
'post-embryonic development'. If it is defined as 
'development that occurs over the full time span between the 
end of embryonic development and the end of the lifespan of 
the organism' then the relationship should be part_of.

If it is defined as 'development that occurs during some 
subset of the time span between the end of embryonic 
development and the end of the lifespan of the organism'
then the relationship should be is_a.

Currently it seems to me that the def is non-commital on 
this. I think of the name as implying the former, but the 
current child terms have relationships based on an 
interpretation of the definition as the latter.

Jen





> 
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, J Clark wrote:
> 
> 
>>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/