[Ontology-editors] has_part - time frame for implementation?

[Jane Lomax]

I don't see why we couldn't start using them now if we restricted them 
to the _write.obo and _ext.obo files.

has_part is defined in RO, so that's not a problem. We could give a 
couple of weeks announcement if we thought we needed to, but the whole 
point of the editors files is to be able to add stuff like this?

Jane



Midori Harris wrote:
> Hi Chris et al,
>
> A recent SourceForge item on spliceosomes has once again highlighted 
> how useful the has_part relationship will be in the CC ontology:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2784316&group_id=36855&atid=440764 
>
>
> There are plenty of similar situations in CC, and I've found some 
> things in BP that could use has_part. I see some usage in a few of the 
> xp files too.
>
> So, do we have any idea when we might be able to use has_part in GO? 
> Would it help to strip has_part links from everything except 
> _write.obo and _ext.obo? Karen and I would be delighted to be able to 
> do the spliceosome terms without having to add a bunch of awkward 
> subcomplex-when-it's-part-of-this-bigger-complex terms.
>
> Thanks,
> midori
> _______________________________________________
> Ontology-editors mailing list
> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors


-- 
Dr Jane Lomax
GO Editorial Office
EMBL-EBI
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
Hinxton
Cambridgeshire, UK
CB10 1SD

p: +44 1223 492516
f: +44 1223 494468