planteome-user
commented
14 years ago Does it make sense to have gametophyte and sporophyte be part_of whole plant, so everything that is part of them, will automatically be part of whole plant? That way they wouldn’t have the is_a link to whole plant that we don’t want, but they would still be logically connected.
There will already be implicit part_of links to whole plant for all gametophyte or sporophyte structures through the general terms that are part_of whole plant, but it might make sense to make the link explicit. For example: microphyll is_a phyllome, which is part_of whole plant, but microphyll is also part_of gametophyte. If gametophyte is part_of whole plant, microphyll will be part_of whole plant no matter which path one takes.
On may argue that gametophyte and sporophyte are whole plants, but we already decided not to make them is_a children of whole plant, for operational reasons. In any case, since part_of relationship does not exclude them from being the whole thing (doesn't have to be a proper part), this should not be a problem.
Gametophyte and sporophyte are siblings of whole plant (all are is_a children of plant structure), but I don't know if it is a bad idea to have one sibling be part_of another sibling.
Original comment by: rlwalls2008
def'n: A plant structure which is a whole organism (from POC meeting in Ithaca, Dec 09)
On the conference calls on Feb 16th and 23rd, we had fairly extensive discussions of the functionality of keeping gametophyte and sporophyte as siblings to whole plant.
We agreed that our guiding principles should be:
A few examples of whole plant are embryo and seed.
Reported by: cooperl09
Original Ticket: obo/plant-ontology-po-term-requests/69