Move terms under 'Physical quality phenotype' branch

[CuzickA]

Also see #288

[CuzickA]

@jseager7 please could you let me know whether these terms have been used in any sessions PHIPO:0000408 morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000293 abnormal organism morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000399 abnormal phialide morphology PHIPO:0000294 normal organism morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000401 normal phialide morphology

[jseager7]

@CuzickA None of the above terms have been used in any sessions.

[CuzickA]

@jseager7 please could you let me know whether these terms have been used in any sessions PHIPO:0000408 morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000293 abnormal organism morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000399 abnormal phialide morphology PHIPO:0000294 normal organism morphology phenotype PHIPO:0000401 normal phialide morphology

Thanks @jseager7 I'm going to obsolete them

[CuzickA]

Also to note that these terms do not have text definitions

PHIPO:0000408 morphology phenotype obsoleted e6ede9b PHIPO:0000293 abnormal organism morphology phenotype obsoleted bf65327 PHIPO:0000399 abnormal phialide morphology obsoleted d6df2d4 PHIPO:0000294 normal organism morphology phenotype obsoleted 933a12a PHIPO:0000401 normal phialide morphology obsoleted 8f25fd2

[CuzickA]

from FYPO

[CuzickA]

Move 'cell morphology phenotype' and children under 'abnormal anatomical structure physical quality phenotype' a08f161

[CuzickA]

@ValWood a couple of queries

1) do we want NTR: normal morphology (covers cell, tissue and organism levels) 2) do we still want 'cell morphology phenotype'?

Note to self: I still need to update the defs for this terms to fit new parent term

[ValWood]

do we want NTR: normal morphology (covers cell, tissue and organism levels)

I would not add them if we haven't used them yet

do we still want 'cell morphology phenotype'?

I don't think we need this grouping (it won't be particularly useful biologically) , the anatomical physical quality will do

[CuzickA]

Thanks @ValWood

do we want NTR: normal morphology (covers cell, tissue and organism levels)

I would not add them if we haven't used them yet

I will add it as it will be a grouping term for 'normal filament morphology' and 'length' child term

do we still want 'cell morphology phenotype'?

I don't think we need this grouping (it won't be particularly useful biologically) , the anatomical physical quality will do

I will obsolete 'cell morphology phenotype'

[ValWood]

I will add it as it will be a grouping term for 'normal filament morphology' and 'length' child term

I didn't understand this comment. We can look at this next time.

[CuzickA]

Move PHIPO:0001206 'normal filament morpholgy' out of 'abnormal....' and place directly under 'physical quality phenotype' b69418d now looks like this

[CuzickA]

obsolete PHIPO:0000961 'cell morphology phenotype' 6322c80

now looks like this

[CuzickA]

Currently looks like this

What else needs moving under here? @ValWood

[ValWood]

From FYPO using OLS

any phenotypes for normal /abnormal cellular component morphology cell viability (as opposed to population)

seems to cover most.