temporal aspects of 'X development' terms

[J Clark]

> Yes, the key issue here is whether you consider the vascular cord to be 
> an is_a or a part_of the vasculature. In the case of the ureteric bud, 
> when this term was created, I/we (I hope) thought that the metanephros 
> represented a primordial kidney. It is defined this way in the 
> anatomical dictionary, and I think most biologists view it this way. 
> Same goes with the mesonephros, even though it is transient. Therefore 
> since ureteric bud development is a part_of metanephros development, it 
> is also a part_of kidney development. This gets into the sticky issue of 
> lineage and when something begins to exist. In general, I think most 
> biologists consider primordia to be the beginning of the existence of a 
> structure. I think we will continue to be plagued by this question.

For this bit you mean that:

A structure like the kidney develops as follows:

1) kidney primordium (metanephros) forms
2) then kidney primordium develops into kidney.


Then you are saying that in the past we decided that the kidney 
primordium is a type of kidney.

[i]kidney
---[i]kidney primordium (metanephros)

Then you say that since the following is true:

[i]primordial kidney (metanephros) development
---[p]ureteric bud development

we can conclude that

[i]kidney development
---[p]ureteric bud development

The reason you're saying this is weird is because whilst 'ureteric bud 
development' is part of the development of a primordial type of kidney, 
and therefore part of 'kidney development', it does not occur during the 
development of the mature kidney, which we might conclude from looking 
at the graph.

Is that right?

Jen











> 
> I think the really important point to be made here is that in the GO, if 
> you say that the development of a structure X is part_of the development 
> of a structure Y, then that means that when X is formed, a type of Y 
> exists. This question and discussion points out that we think about 
> this. The tough job for us is representing what the biologists, or at 
> least the consensus of biologists, also think about this. I think Doug's 
> point below about what makes sense illustrates this.
> 
> So for the above issue Doug has to ask himself, "Does an ichthyologist 
> consider the vascular cord to be an is_a or part_of the vasculature?". 
> If the answer is yes, then there is a relationship between it and 
> vascular development, if the answer is no, then there is not.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> As for the vascular question, I think that Jen has hit this one 
> correctly, since the system development term is new, I think that we 
> just haven't moved vasculature development to the right place yet. Can 
> you think of components of the vascular system that are not considered 
> vasculature?
> 
> David
> 
>>>> We clearly already have such instances in GO, see 'ureteric bud 
>>>> development' for example.
>>>>
>>>> Biologically, these assertions of part_of make perfect sense...of 
>>>> course 'ureteric bud development' is part of 'kidney 
>>>> development'...and query results would need to respond that way as 
>>>> well.  However, if 'Kidney development' has the scope of 'from it's 
>>>> formation to the mature structure', then developmental events that 
>>>> occur before the kidney exists can't really be part_of 'kidney 
>>>> development' can they?
>>>>
>>>> I know this isn't a new issue..I'm just trying to figure out what 
>>>> the proper course of action is!
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
> 
>