I would first define the relation you want, then decide on the name. extracted_from and isolated_from appears incorrect, unless you want to scope your ontology to describing only proteins extracted in experiments. It would seem that a protein may not fit the criteria of a biologically significant amount of matter of a whole organism. In fact, in an example somewhat analagous to Mathia's, there may be no continuation of matter in the case of viruses. depending on your definition of "encoded_by" and a more rigid definition of SO:gene, it may be sufficient to represent the partonomic relations between genes and organisms. you can request relations on the ro tracker obofoundry.org/ro btw, http://www.cellcycleontology.org/ontology/cco.owl is a dead link On Aug 14, 2007, at 5:39 AM, Erick Antezana wrote:
Dear all,
currently, our proteins in CCO are linked to their respective organisms by using the relationship "derives_from"; however, as Mathias makes references in one of his articles [1], this relationship should be carefully chosen and it seems that CCO is misusing it. In that sense, we were wondering whether another relationship could be proposed? such as:
extracted_from? comes_from? occurs_in? isolated_from? appears_in_organism?
cheers, Erick
[1] http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/Home/ DerivationBookVersion1-2.pdf
-- ================================================================== Erick Antezana http://www.cellcycleontology.org PhD student Tel:+32 (0)9 331 38 24 fax:+32 (0)9 3313809 VIB Department of Plant Systems Biology, Ghent University Technologiepark 927, 9052 Gent, BELGIUM erant@psb.ugent.be http://www.psb.ugent.be/~erant ==================================================================
_______________________________________________ ccofriends mailing list ccofriends@psb.ugent.be https://maillist.psb.ugent.be/mailman/listinfo/ccofriends