Feedback on POC (fwd) (PR#89)

[Katica Ilic]

Dear François,

Thank you for bringing to our attention an existence of terms in the PO with
missing relationships. We recognized this problem some time ago and have been
trying to solve it. In fact, one of our colleagues, Pankaj Jaiswal, has been
actively working on adding 'is_a' relationships to PO terms. This month, the
ontology release will include updates for some of them, for instance the term
you mentioned 'adventitious root epidermis'. Since there are many terms with
missing 'is_a' relationship, it may take several rounds of ontology updates to
complete this task and have the ontology where all terms would have 'is_a'
relationship.

Regarding your suggestion to include
'obsolete_plant_growth_and_development_stage', this is exactly what we currently
have in PO as the top grouping term for all obsoleted terms in this aspect of
PO. The term you were referring to is just and old term that was obsoleted early
on while we were creating PO. We don’t use, maintain or change names of
obsoleted terms, since they are in the ontology mainly for the historical
prospective and for keeping a record of all the terms entered in the ontology
(no term is ever deleted in PO). 

Thank you for using Plant Ontologies and for contacting us.

Best regards,

Katica Ilic, POC Project Coordinator

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:45:39 -0400
> From: feedback_submission at filetta.cshl.edu
> Reply-To: po-dev at plantontology.org, feedback_submission at filetta.cshl.edu
> To: po-dev <po-dev at plantontology.org>
> Subject: Feedback on POC
> 
>      *** Feedback from Plant Ontology Live Site ***
> 
> refer_to_url: http://www.plantontology.org/index.html
> 
> comments: Hello!
> 
> I noticed that some obvious "is_a" relationships are missing...
> 
> eg: Term "adventitious root epidermis" should have an "is_a" relationship to
> "root epidermis";
> Term "aleurone layer" should, at least (maybe not directly, but through some
> sub-class) have an "is_a" relationship to "Tissue"; (as far as I know)
> 
> Besides, I think that it would be better to rename the Term "obsolete growth
and
> development terms" to "obsolete plant growth and development stage", in order
to
> be consistent with its structural counterpart.
> 
> Thanks for reading me.
> Bye
> 
> name: Fran篩s DELCOUX
> 
> email: fdelcoux at ulb.ac.be
> 
> organization: ULB (Belgium)
> 
> send_feedback: Send your feedback
> --1118555204-1981955417-1130439040=:13943--
> 
>