HELP!: GO Term Error

[Midori Harris]

Hi Pankaj,

You do have a good point about some of the existing function terms. We
should make an effort to remove those that mention cellular component or
anatomy terms. For example, all of the 'structural constituent of ... '
terms could be merged into their parent.

The 'myosin' terms are in the cellular component ontology, and 'anther
dehiscence' is in process; all are OK.

Midori

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Pankaj Jaiswal wrote:

> 
> 
> Midori Harris wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Sue Rhee wrote:
> > 
> > > how about:
> > >
> > > nutrient reserve
> > >  amino acid reserve
> > >   amino acid reserve in seed syn: seed storage protein
> > 
> > we could add 'amino acid reserve' if it's useful -- opinions?
> > 
> > '... in seed' is still problematic -- we don't want function terms to
> > include cellular component or anatomy info.
> > 
> > m
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> We figured out more,  the structural component is there under GO_function with
> several of the anatomical terms as part of function.
> 
> examples:
> muscle myosin
> non-muscle myosin
> muscle thin filament tropomyosin
> structural constituent of myelin sheath
> anther dehiscence
> structural constituent of bone
> 
> and several other instances of  
> *structural constituent* 
> 
> Most of them have anatomical descriptors as part of the term.
> 
> Also there is a term for "yolk protein" under "structural molecule". This a
> storage protein for the developing embryo a distant equivalent of seed storage
> protein, but atleast the later term refelcts some fucntion.
> 
> Infact the term part "molecule" in "structural molecule" might be considered for
> removal the same way as the term part "protein". 
> 
> Any opinions! 
> 
> 
> I think I have made my point here and I don't want to be so critical every time.
> Sorry about that.
> 
> Cheers
> Pankaj
>