[Ontology-editors] spore parts (was Re: [Obo-cell-type] [Fwd: removing "sensu" from the CTO])

[Chris Mungall]

On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Midori Harris wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> A GO-centric tangent ...
>
>>>>>> Furthermore, for the Cell Ontology, sensu actually makes a lot
>>>>>> more sense than even the GO, since we can see that a common term
>>>>>> like 'spore' does mean different thing to bacterialogists and
>>>>>> mycologists, even though there is an abstract relationship in the
>>>>>> function and structure of bacterial spores and fungal spores.
>>
>> Actually, today we had a request for more spore parts in GO:
>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2609548&group_id=36855&atid=440764
>
> In light of this exchange, any comments on the terms requested in  
> this item, or objections to adding them? The Swiss-Prot curators are  
> apparently trying to make the terms and definitions species-neutral,  
> so I'd appreciate hearing what you think.

I don't know much about spores. From the proposed definitions it  
certainly sounds as if there is a lot structurally in common between  
these parts across widely divergent species. Be good to quickly check.

>
>
> thanks,
> m
>
>> [Alex]
>>>>>> I don't care if we eliminate the sensu formulation in favor of
>>>>>> species specific term names and definitions, but I do care very
>>>>>> much about conflating terms that really ought to be kept
>>>>>> separate.  And in this particular example (spore), there ought
>>>>>> not to be a common cell type at all, and favor the retention of
>>>>>> (the poorly defined) 'spore (sensu Mycetozoa) ; CL000029'.  We
>>>>>> ought split out other types of spores without a common parent.
>