<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Chris Mungall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cjm@berkeleybop.org">cjm@berkeleybop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Apr 9, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Valerie Wood wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
It seems like there is a gap in the terminology of biology to decribe "everything that is not a macromolecule molecule". Maybe we should make one up....<br>
Perhaps "small molecule metabolism" would be acceptable if it is defined as "everything that is not a macromolucule" but that is not an acceptable way of defining something is it?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Do we really need a term for it? Why not just ask for non-X metabolism any time you're interested in metabolism of Ys where Ys are not Xs<br>
<br>
Granted tools can't do this yet but it's not hard given the correct structures in the ontology, and we should perhaps be working towards a situation where tools do support this</blockquote><div><br>I am partial to this approach. Defining 'small molecule metabolism' as everything that is not 'macromolecule metabolism' violates the ontology design principle of positivity. Why not just combine the annotations from the terms that do cover what is desired and then analyze those results?<br>
<br>Tanya</div></div><br>