[Ontology-editors] constituent part
Jane Lomax
jane at ebi.ac.uk
Tue Jul 8 04:41:25 PDT 2008
Looks like this is the offending relationship:
/ GO:0005576 extracellular region
po GO:0020008 rhoptry {via is_a extracellular region part}
I can't find anything in the literature to indicate that the rhoptry is
extracellular (see
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v6/n1/fig_tab/nrmicro1800_F3.html).
Anyone object if I go ahead and delete this relationship?
Jane
Chris Mungall wrote:
>
> Actually if constituent has no special meaning then the reasoner is
> correct (the links are not asserted & the reasoner is inferring the
> links)
>
> / GO:0005576 extracellular region
> po GO:0020008 rhoptry {via is_a extracellular region part}
> / GO:0005623 cell
> po GO:0045177 apical part of cell {via is_a cell part}
> po GO:0020007 apical complex
> po GO:0020008 rhoptry
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Jane Lomax wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
--
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