[Ontology-editors] haspart documentation (meeting with Chris (fwd))

[Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark)]

Is there a known correct use of parent/child for has_part? It seems to 
me that has_part is bound to be a bit tricky, but that if there is a 
correct usage then it would be best if we find out what it is and try to 
stick with it from day 1.

Jen

Amelia Ireland wrote:
> 
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Chris Mungall wrote:
> 
>>
>> Unfortunately, the whole 'parent/child' terminology becomes confusing 
>> with has_part
>> http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~aji/go/GO.ontology.relationships.shtml#haspart
>>
>> If we take 'child' to mean the subject of the assertion, and 'parent' 
>> to mean the target/object of the assertion, then in
>>     chromosome has_part chromatin
>>
>> chromosome is the child and chromatin is the parent
>>
>> This usage is consistent with our graphical metaphors, where we always 
>> have child ---> parent
>>
>> Of course, this conflicts with the intuition we have drummed into 
>> people after 10 years, where 'child' is the smaller and 'parent' is 
>> the larger.
> 
> 
> I would argue that your average everyday mortal (e.g. me) considers the 
> parent to be the broader term (closer to the root node) and the child to 
> be the more specific term. If I've used the terms 'child' and 'parent' 
> in the opposite way somewhere, it's accidental, and due to a copy/paste 
> error!
> 
> Perhaps I'll add something at the top about the nomenclature conventions 
> used in these docs so it's not so confusing.
> 
> -- 
> Amelia Ireland
> GO Editorial Office
> http://www.berkeleybop.org || http://www.ebi.ac.uk
> BBOP Plant Project: http://bbopgarden.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ontology-editors mailing list
> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors