larval development

[J Clark]

Hi,

I reckon I'm just going to add larval development as an is_a 
child to get the change done.

Thanks,

Jen

J Clark wrote:

> 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/