[Ontology-editors] ferrichrome question (SF 2528716)

[Midori Harris]

Thanks for the quick response!

I think I see where the macromolecule parent came from -- it's because of 
the peptide modification ancestor. The term name could be reworded 
"peptide modification involved in ferrichrome biosynthetic process", but 
if that would still be too weird, we can remove the parent. It would then 
be odd to have a term with "peptide modification" in the name that doesn't 
have a path back to the generic "peptide modification" parent, though.

Which is the lesser problem?
(adding the ont-eds list because of the consistency issue ...)

m

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Gwinn Giglio, Michelle wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> The current structure is definitely strange.  See also that the sibling term
> "ferrichrome biosynthesis, peptide formation" does not have the
> macromolecule parent.  I would be inclined to take away the  macromolecule
> parent.  It does not fit with my understanding of macromolecule.
>
> Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/26/09 11:13 AM, "Midori Harris" <midori at ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michelle,
>>
>> Val has pointed out that it's a bit confusing to have one path from
>> 'ferrichrome biosynthetic process, peptide modification' (GO:0031200) lead
>> back to macromolecule metabolic process, whereas another path doesn't.
>> Should we make any changes?
>>
>> Let me know if I can explain better, or help.
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2528716&group_id=368
>> 55&atid=440764
>>
>> Thanks,
>> midori
>