[Ontology-editors] CC organization question for xps

[Midori Harris]

Well, it's pretty much consistent with what I alluded to much more briefly 
in my last contribution to this thread, so I'm also keen to hear what 
David and Tanya have to say about it.

m

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark) wrote:

> Hi Tanya,
>
> Are you saying that you don't feel that the process by which subcellular 
> components are generated should really be is_a to developmental process? I 
> feel this, but I'm not sure whether I have missed some intention you had in 
> making this graph, as the developmental process def currently does include 
> subcellular structures:
>
> def:A biological process whose specific outcome is the progression of an 
> integrated living unit: an anatomical structure (which may be a subcellular 
> structure, cell, tissue, or organ), or organism over time from an initial 
> condition to a later condition.
>
> To my mind it would make more sense somehow to distinguish between the kind 
> of multicellular structures that undergo classical developmental processes, 
> and the subcellular structures that are generated in different ways. If my 
> understanding is correct then I think maybe the answer is just to do 
> something like this:
>
> [i]anatomical structure generation (renamed from anatomical structure dev)
> ---[i]multicellular structure development (classical organ and tissue and 
> larger scale developmental processes)
> ---[i]cell development (to include things like cell differentiation as now)
> ---[i]subcellular structure generation
>
> [i]developmental process
> ---[i]multicellular structure development (classical developmental processes)
> ---[i]cell development (to include things like cell differentiation)
>
> This would take CC assembly out of under development, but keep it under 
> anatomical structure generation. It would also avoid massive rearrangements 
> of the development/morphogenesis structures that were so carefully put 
> together before. Does that make sense or have I missed something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jen
>