[Ontology-editors] another question about biogenesis/organization

[Midori Harris]

Seriously, the problem with "and" is that it could make a gene product 
annotated to a descendant term look like it's involved in everything 
covered by a parent (e.g. annotate to biogenesis and imply annotation also 
to organization, which includes disassembly).

so that doesn't rule out "organization or biogenesis" ...

m

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Valerie Wood wrote:

> "organization and biogenesis" ? ;)
>
>
> Midori Harris wrote:
>
>> Ow, my head.
>> 
>> I think we've worked out reasonable definitions for "organization" and 
>> "biogenesis" and we're just about there for applying them consistently. 
>> What we don't have -- and apparently you could really use -- is some term 
>> that covers everything we're putting under both organization and biogenesis 
>> ... "anything that happens to a cellular component".
>> 
>> What to call it, though?
>> 
>> m
>> 
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Valerie Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I still haven't got my head around this...see my recent SF 
>>> item.....problem with my slimming
>>> I am still trying to get a slim for a tutorial which gives good coverage 
>>> of all of my annotated gene products.
>>> 
>>> Previously I had the term "cell wall organization and biogenesis" which 
>>> covered all of cell wall organization and biogenesis.
>>> 
>>> Now organization and biogenesis are "disjoint" (am I using the correct 
>>> terminology?) I need to include *Both* the organization and biogenesis 
>>> term, when it seems as though I really want one term to cover both of 
>>> these cell wall processes at this level, and that they are intimately 
>>> related. I'm not sure how my original annotations got split between the 
>>> the 2 new terms but there isn't much overlap now......
>>> 
>>> 73 to biogenesis
>>> and 63 to organization
>>> 21 to both
>>> However when I look through the list I am pretty sure all of those 
>>> annotated to biogenesis to equally be annotated to organization.
>>> 
>>> Now, if i don't include both of these terms in the slim, I get gene 
>>> products which do not map to a high level term.
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Val
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>