[Ontology-editors] use of word "gloss" Re: plant-type terms etc.

[Karen Christie]

I like the basic idea a lot, but I think it would be a little confusing to 
call the first part, that we've been referring to as the logical part, 
"the definition", and then say that the second part is expanded form of 
the definition. It seems to me that both the first and second parts are 
part of the definition, and actually, if this will all be in the 
"definition" field then the definition would be composed of multiple 
parts, and each component part should have some specific name other than 
"definition". I'm fine with calling the first part the "logical" part. 
That always made sense to me.

For the second part, some other ideas to try to keep it to a single word: 
description, explanation, just to put some other ideas out there.

-Karen


On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark) wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> 
>> - a definition - necessary and sufficient conditions, ideally specified in 
>> genus-differentia form, where the genus is an is_a parent or ancestor and 
>> the differentia are relationships to other GO terms or other OBO ontologies
>> - explanatory text - expanded form of the definition containing additional 
>> descriptive text or explanations clarifying the definition
>> - examples
>> - counter-examples
>> - additional notes
>> 
>
> I think it would be great to have this new vocabulary established and to 
> follow it as general guidance in writing definitions.
>
> When I read the part of the definition after the initial strictly logical 
> part, I often think of this next section as 'context'. I'm not sure if this 
> would be any better than 'explanatory text' but I just put it forward as 
> another option.
>
> Jen
>