temporal aspects of 'X development' terms

[Tanya Berardini]

Hi David,

I've finally had a chance to catch up with this thread and am wondering 
how this would apply to something like say 'leaf development'.  If I 
follow the reasoning below,
if leaf primordium is considered an instance of leaf (it is in PO 
structure ontology) would the logical conclusion be that

[i]leaf development
--[i] leaf primordium formation

rather than

[i] leaf development
--[p] leaf primordium formation

Is that right?


Tanya

On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:02 AM, David Hill wrote:

> J Clark wrote:
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I conclude that (here I go) an instance of 'ureteric bud development' 
> [that I can look at in an embryo] is a part of some instance of the 
> development of a kidney [that I can look at in an embryo]. In this 
> case, it is the embryonic kidney, called a metanephros.
>
>>
>> Is that right?
>>
>> Jen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>