Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Are OBA:0000036 body fluid levels really an anatomical structure size trait ? #35

Closed
pgaudet opened this issue Jul 8, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #67
Closed

Are OBA:0000036 body fluid levels really an anatomical structure size trait ? #35

pgaudet opened this issue Jul 8, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #67

Comments

@pgaudet
Copy link

pgaudet commented Jul 8, 2019

id: OBA:0000036
name: body fluid levels

  • is_a: OBA:VT0010454 ! organism trait
  • is_a: OBA:VT0100005 ! body size trait

In the new import into GO, this creates an inference 'regulation of body fluid levels SubClassOf regulation of anatomical structure size', which seems incorrect.

Can you please check and edit ?

Thanks, Pascale

@cmungall
Copy link
Member

cmungall commented Jul 8, 2019

This arises from the fact that

  1. volume is-a size in PATO
  2. 'anatomical structure' is a very broad class, encompassing for example a particular portion of blood in an arbitrary segment of a blood vessel

Number 1 is being discussed here pato-ontology/pato#246

Regarding 2, I think when GO talks of 'regulation of anatomical structure size' we are talking about more "discrete" anatomical structures. But maybe this is moot if 1 is resolved

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Feb 14, 2022

I think this is actually a problem with the logical definition in OBA: volume and ('inheres in' some 'multicellular organism'). The multicellular organism should probably be bodily fluid.

@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor

@rays22 can you take care of this?

@balhoff
Copy link
Member

balhoff commented Feb 14, 2022

I'm about to make a PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants