[Ontology-editors] use of regulates

[Chris Mungall]

Midori is correct

We would have to make a single explicit disjoint_from statement  
between RoMCOP and RoMOP to prohibit nodes from having is_a lineage in  
both. But I don't think we would want to do this.

Compare with the methodology for declaring that two CCs are spatially  
disconnected:
http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Cellular_component_disjoint_classes#Spatial_disjointness 
:_Disconnected_from

On Jul 31, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Midori Harris wrote:

> I think this would be fine. Disjointness only applies to is_a, and  
> we already have lots of cellular processes that are (sometimes  
> indirectly)
> part_of some MCOP or MOP. There are probably also regulates  
> examples, but I would have to search to make sure.
>
> We might want 'regulation of cAMP-mediated signaling' anyway if  
> there would be any other children besides the modulation by host  
> etc. one.
>
> m
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Jane Lomax wrote:
>
>> Also, can I make regulates relationships directly between the MOP  
>> terms and non-MOP process terms? For example:
>>
>> modulation by host of symbiont cAMP-mediated signaling -regulates->  
>> cAMP-mediated signaling
>>
>> Or do I need to make a 'regualtion of cAMP-mediated signaling' term?
>>
>> Does it matter that 'regualtion of cAMP-mediated signaling' would  
>> be a 'regulation of cellular process'? (I know we haven't tried to  
>> apply disjointness to any of the regulation terms, but just seems  
>> wrong somehow!)
>>
>> Jane
>>
>>
>>
>> Jane Lomax wrote:
>>> Hi Chris, David and Tanya - I'm in the midst of creating a load of  
>>> new terms for PAMGO, and I'm trying to get the regulates  
>>> relationships correct as I go to save pain in the future. It works  
>>> so differently from the other all-some relations we use I'm having  
>>> a hard time getting my head around it.
>>> For example, in a situation where you have a term 'regulation of  
>>> process X' but there's no process X in GO, but process X is_a  
>>> process Y, is it okay to say that 'regulation of process X'  
>>> regulates process Y? Or do we have to create a process X?
>>> Jane
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ontology-editors mailing list
> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>