[Ontology-editors] plant-type terms etc.

[Chris Mungall]

I agree, no need to revisit the naming issue.

However, these terms are in the minority. There are a larger set of  
terms in which specific examples would be helpful. Examples would  
always go in the gloss part of the definition, and ideally have a  
citation. I think this is just clarifying existing GO policy.

On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Midori Harris wrote:

> I seem to recall several annotators expressing a strong preference  
> for the names like 'plant-type vacuole' when we discussed it at a  
> GOC meeting. Given that these names got the full discuss-at-meeting  
> treatment, and that the current names are thus a consensus meeting  
> outcome (tm), I wouldn't change them without obtaining explicit  
> approval from the larger GO group.
>
> m
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A proposal has been made as follows:
>>
>> Instead of putting modifiers like 'plant-type' in term names to  
>> make the meaning of the more esoterically defined terms clear, we  
>> should just put an example in the definition gloss. For example  
>> this term:
>>
>> GO:0000325
>> name: plant-type vacuole
>> exact: vacuole, cell cycle-independent morphology
>> def: A closed structure, found only in eukaryotic cells, that is  
>> completely surrounded by a unit membrane, contains liquid, and  
>> retains the same shape regardless of cell cycle phase. [source:  
>> GOC:mtg_sensu, ISBN:0815316208]
>>
>> would become:
>>
>> GO:0000325
>> name: vacuole, cell cycle-independent morphology
>> def: A closed structure, that is completely surrounded by a unit  
>> membrane, contains liquid, and retains the same shape regardless of  
>> cell cycle phase. An example of this structure is the vacuole of  
>> plant cells. [source: GOC:mtg_sensu, ISBN:0815316208]
>>
>> Would anybody have any objection to this change? The advantages are  
>> that this policy would remove prominent taxon information from the  
>> file but would still leave information in the gloss to clarify the  
>> meaning of the term. The disadvantage is that the less prominent  
>> clue to the meaning of the term would leave users having to hunt a  
>> bit more to find what they want.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ontology-editors mailing list
>> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ontology-editors mailing list
> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>