[Ontology-editors] What does the MF ontology represent?

[Amelia Ireland]

Back in Gotham City on 16 Sep 2008, at 09:08, Chris Mungall wrote:

> And can we just drop the "dirty function" thing? The term has been  
> used once since St Croix in a clearly ironic context, it's not like  
> there is a gang of ontologists trying to force this term down poor  
> biologists throats.

I can't remember if I was the evil mind responsible for the term in  
the first place, but I apologize if I was. I've always used the phrase  
as a joke, and would certainly not advocate its use in any formal  
context. I have the misfortune of a dry sense of humour and a deadpan  
manner, so things said ironically or as a joke are often  
misinterpreted as being serious (especially since this is the opposite  
of the way Americans act). Ah, the burdens of being British (or maybe  
just of having a crap sense of humour...)! ;) ;)

If, at some point in the future, this topic gets broached with the  
consortium, perhaps we can use some nomenclature that is accurate  
without sounding derogatory; maybe something like 'functional role'? I  
do think much of the confusion surrounding the issue is due to  
'function' having a number of different possible meanings. If there  
were some way of describing the different classes of term in the MF  
ontology without using the word 'function', it would make explaining  
things much easier. Well, possibly...

A.

--
Amelia Ireland
GO Editorial Office
http://www.ebi.ac.uk || http://www.berkeleybop.org
BBOP Plant Project: http://bbopgarden.blogspot.com