[Ontology-editors] draft has_part announcement

[Amelia Ireland]

On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:45 AM, David Hill wrote:

> I think the documentation is fine for now even with the ???  
> relationships. This basically means that we don't know yet and we  
> are taking the conservative approach. Do you think it would be  
> worthwhile to indicate this? I think we could either go with  
> 'regulates' or 'indirectly regulates'. I kind of like the indirectly  
> because it gives you an idea that you are regulating a regulatory  
> process, but I fear it will cause more confusion.


I omitted it for that reason (and also partially because OmniGraffle  
was slowly but surely driving me insane). We haven't yet got a good  
def for 'regulates', and until we have that, and we've added the  
'indirectly regulates' relations to the file, I think that adding more  
relations to the docs will just confuse people even further! As it is,  
there still needs to be a section on cross-products and the true path  
rule... I'm going to take a little break from documentation and then  
come back to those!

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