cellular component

[waku]

You classify cellular component as a compound. While it is
reasonable, be aware that GO contains term for immaterial entities in
the cellular component branch; for example, endosomal lumen (defined
as the volume surrounded by the endosomal membrane).

This is not your fault; but either you must acknowledge this somehow,
or GO must fix this issue.

vQ

[Stefan Schulz]

Thanks for your remark. The question is also whether or not to allow
compounds to have immaterial spatial components.

Stefan

2007/5/14, waku <lampu...@gmail.com>:

--
PD Dr. Stefan SCHULZ [stsc...@uni-freiburg.de]
Universitätsklinikum - Abt.Medizinische Informatik
Stefan-Meier-Strasse 26 D-79104 Freiburg
[home: Eschholzstr. 70 D-79115 Freiburg]
+49 (0)761 2036724, 2036702, 2049089, FAX 2033251
www.imbi.uni-freiburg.de/medinf/schulz
Skype: stschulz

[waku]

yes. i discussed with barry the issue of material entities having
immaterial entities as parts, and he was positive.

it may be different in the case of molecules. it *may*, since some
molecules may sort of enclose a piece of space, so to speak, and thus
also 'have' immaterial entities as parts.

vQ

On May 14, 1:01 pm, "Stefan Schulz" <stes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your remark. The question is also whether or not to allow
> compounds to have immaterial spatial components.
>
> Stefan
>

> 2007/5/14, waku <lampuce...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
> > You classify cellular component as a compound. While it is
> > reasonable, be aware that GO contains term for immaterial entities in
> > the cellular component branch; for example, endosomal lumen (defined
> > as the volume surrounded by the endosomal membrane).
>
> > This is not your fault; but either you must acknowledge this somehow,
> > or GO must fix this issue.
>
> > vQ
>
> --

> PD Dr. Stefan SCHULZ [stsch...@uni-freiburg.de]

[Stefan Schulz]

>
> yes. i discussed with barry the issue of material entities having
> immaterial entities as parts, and he was positive.
>
> it may be different in the case of molecules. it *may*, since some
> molecules may sort of enclose a piece of space, so to speak, and thus
> also 'have' immaterial entities as parts.
>

I make here a difference between parts and non-overlapping components.
I do not see a problem with allowing immaterial parts. But the problem
arises as soon as we talk about *components* as those entities that
fully make up a compound. An example: you take two Lego plates and
four bricks and build a closed cuboid. You might agree that the
enclosed space is a part of that cuboid. But it would be quite odd to
state that the thing has seven components: four bricks, two plates,
and one cuboid space...

Stefan

> vQ
>
> On May 14, 1:01 pm, "Stefan Schulz" <stes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your remark. The question is also whether or not to allow
> > compounds to have immaterial spatial components.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > 2007/5/14, waku <lampuce...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > > You classify cellular component as a compound. While it is
> > > reasonable, be aware that GO contains term for immaterial entities in
> > > the cellular component branch; for example, endosomal lumen (defined
> > > as the volume surrounded by the endosomal membrane).
> >
> > > This is not your fault; but either you must acknowledge this somehow,
> > > or GO must fix this issue.
> >
> > > vQ
> >
> > --
> > PD Dr. Stefan SCHULZ [stsch...@uni-freiburg.de]
> > Universitätsklinikum - Abt.Medizinische Informatik
> > Stefan-Meier-Strasse 26 D-79104 Freiburg
> > [home: Eschholzstr. 70 D-79115 Freiburg]
> > +49 (0)761 2036724, 2036702, 2049089, FAX 2033251
> > www.imbi.uni-freiburg.de/medinf/schulz
> > Skype: stschulz
>
>
> >
>

--
PD Dr. Stefan SCHULZ [stsc...@uni-freiburg.de]