POC Conf. Call 3-8-11 - Revision history

Cooperl at 16:44, 11 March 2011

2011-03-11T16:44:28Z

2011-03-10T17:50:46Z

protonema, chloronema, caulonema

2011-03-10T17:40:01Z

protonema, chloronema, caulonema

2011-03-10T13:19:21Z

protonema, chloronema, caulonema

2011-03-10T13:10:57Z

protonema, chloronema, caulonema

2011-03-10T13:10:42Z

protonema, chloronema, caulonema

2011-03-09T22:51:19Z

Other related terms

2011-03-09T22:46:53Z

Other related terms

2011-03-09T22:40:18Z

2011-03-09T21:47:40Z

Annotations and has_part relations

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Collaborators: none
-Acceptance of the minutes from the [[POC_Conf._Call_3-1-11]]? There were no changes, additions, or deletions.
+Acceptance of the minutes from the [[POC_Conf._Call_3-1-11]]?
 =Issues arising from last week's meeting:=

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 ''We should not work too much on phases until the PGDSO is sorted out, but it is okay to add protonema phase for now as defined above.''
-''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subphase of the gametophytic phase. Use subphase rather than part of in definition (even though we will use the part of relation) because there can be parts of a phase that are not subphases.''
+''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subphase of the gametophytic phase. Use sub-phase rather than part of in text definition (even though we will use the part of relation) because there can be parts of a phase that are not sub-phases.''
 =Best Practices Guide: When to obsolete terms?=

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 ''We should not work too much on phases until the PGDSO is sorted out, but it is okay to add protonema phase for now as defined above.''
-''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subset (section? need to listen to recording of the meeting) of the gametophytic phase.''
+''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subphase of the gametophytic phase. Use subphase rather than part of in definition (even though we will use the part of relation) because there can be parts of a phase that are not subphases.''
 =Best Practices Guide: When to obsolete terms?=

@@ Line 249: / Line 249: @@
 '''Proposed definition of caulonema:'''A portion of protonema that has as part caulonema cells and initiates gametophore buds.
-Comment: Generally, the development of chlornema precedes the development of caulonema. Only the caulonema, and not the chloronema, initiates gametophore buds.
+Comment: Generally, the development of caulonema  follows the development of chlornema. Only the caulonema, and not the chloronema, initiates gametophore buds.
 ''New proposed definitions:''
@@ Line 268: / Line 268: @@
 ''New proposed definitions:''
-''chloronema cell: A plant cell that is part of a chloronema and has cross walls of adjacent cells that are perpendicular to the protonema axis. Comment: A chloronema cell contain many well-developed chloroplasts.''
+''chloronema cell: A plant cell that is part of a chloronema and has cross walls of adjacent cells that are perpendicular to the protonema axis. Comment: A chloronema cell contains many well-developed chloroplasts.''
 ''caulonema cell: A plant cell that is part of a caulonema and has cross walls of adjacent cells that are oblique to the protonema axis. Comment A caulonema cell contains fewer, less well-developed chloroplasts than a chloronema cell.''

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 ''We should not work too much on phases until the PGDSO is sorted out, but it is okay to add protonema phase for now as defined above.''
-''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subset (section? need to listen to recording of the meeting) of the gametophytic phase.
+''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subset (section? need to listen to recording of the meeting) of the gametophytic phase.''
 =Best Practices Guide: When to obsolete terms?=

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 10 March 2011
Line 278:		Line 278:

	''We should not work too much on phases until the PGDSO is sorted out, but it is okay to add protonema phase for now as defined above.''		''We should not work too much on phases until the PGDSO is sorted out, but it is okay to add protonema phase for now as defined above.''
		+
		+	''Rather than saying that a protonema phase is part of a gametophytic phase, should say that it is a subset (section? need to listen to recording of the meeting) of the gametophytic phase.

	=Best Practices Guide: When to obsolete terms?=		=Best Practices Guide: When to obsolete terms?=

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 ''Agreed that it should be part of microsporangium.  Check if "pollen mother cell" is exact synonym, and add it if not. [Pollen mother cell is already a synonym of microsporocyte.]''
-''We should add a new term "sporocyte", parent to megasporocyte and microsporocyte, and also as a class for the sporocytes in homosporous plants like mosses. [We already have the term sporocyte.]''
+''We should add a new term "sporocyte", parent to megasporocyte and microsporocyte, and also as a class for the sporocytes in homosporous plants like mosses. [We already have the term sporocyte, but the definitions of the sporocyte terms need a little work.]''
 =Restructuring descendants of leaf (PO:0025034) - recap of last week's decisions=

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 ''Agreed''
-*[https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3195060&group_id=76834&atid=835555 theca] (PO:0009069): is_a collective organ part, part of anther, has_part pollen sac.
+*[https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3195060&group_id=76834&atid=835555 theca] (PO:0009069): is_a collective organ part structure, part of anther, has_part pollen sac.
 ''Agreed''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''POC meeting, Webex Conference Call; Date: Tuesday Mar 8th, 2011 10am (PST)'''
-In attendance:
+In attendance: Laurel Cooper (OSU), Ramona Walls (NYBG), Dennis Stevenson (NYBG), Justin Elser (OSU), Justin Preece (OSU), Barry Smith (University at Buffalo, NY),
-POC members:
+Absent: Pankaj Jaiswal (OSU), Marie Alejandra Gandolfo; (Cornell University) Chris Mungall (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab),
-Absent:
+Collaborators: none
-Collaborators:
+Acceptance of the minutes from the [[POC_Conf._Call_3-1-11]]? There were no changes, additions, or deletions.
 =Issues arising from last week's meeting:=

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 ''Dennis suggested an alternative solution which was to have one common upper-level ontology combined with a series of taxon specifc ontologies that cross-reference the upper-level ontology and possibly each other.''
-''Barry suggested that we may want to contact Tod Detwiler, who is the software person for the FMA. Although FMA is a single species ontology, they have many more terms than the PO, and are dealing with many of the same problems.''
+''Barry suggested that we may want to contact [http://sig.biostr.washington.edu/~detwiler/ Tod Detwiler], who is the software person for the FMA. Although FMA is a single species ontology, they have many more terms than the PO, and are dealing with many of the same problems.''
 ''LC will schedule a special tech meeting to discuss possible software solutions, and to see if it will be feasible to use the has_part relations.''
 ''The issue of annotations can also be addressed at the tech meeting we are planning to hold.''
 ===Other related terms===