[Ontology-editors] constituent part
Jane Lomax
jane at ebi.ac.uk
Tue Jul 8 03:48:37 PDT 2008
Chris - I don't think 'constituent part' has any special meaning in
these defs - we could drop it. The reasoner is right to throw up those
"rhoptry lumen" relationships - they are dodgy, how can it be both a
cell part and extracellular?
Jane
Chris Mungall wrote:
> We use the phrase "constituent part" in (almost) all the "X part"
> terms; e.g.:
>
> axoneme part [DEF: "Any constituent part of an axoneme, the bundle of
> microtubules and associated proteins that forms the core of cilia and
> flagella in eukaryotic cells and is responsible for their movements."]
>
> What exactly does "constituent" mean here?
>
> I recall being part of the discussion that lead to this, but can't
> find the relevant emails. Did we just import this term from the FMA?
> It seems to have a specific meaning in anatomy. I can't really find a
> solid definition in the FMA papers.
>
> I don't see anything in the component docs either.
>
> I think we should either document this or drop it
>
> Here's why I'm interested - I define X part generically as a cellular
> component that is part_of X.
>
> This means the reasoner throws up:
>
> "rhoptry lumen" [GO:0034591] is_a "extracellular region part"
> [GO:0044421]
> "rhoptry lumen" [GO:0034591] is_a "cell part" [GO:0044464]
>
> Is there something subtle in the "constituent" qualifier that is
> missing from my xp definition, that simultaneously excludes the above
> links?
> _______________________________________________
> Ontology-editors mailing list
> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
--
Dr Jane Lomax
GO Editorial Office
EMBL-EBI
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
Hinxton
Cambridgeshire, UK
CB10 1SD
p: +44 1223 492516
f: +44 1223 494468
More information about the Ontology-editors
mailing list