Closed gocentral closed 9 years ago
gocentral
commented
20 years ago Logged In: YES user_id=785556
i think if we want to consider this, then we'd also have to look at nucleic_acid_binding to see how it would fit....
then for consistency, i think we'd also have to investigate other pairs, like:
protein_binding and peptide_binding organic_acid_binding and acyl_binding etc.
stacia
Original comment by: srengel
gocentral
commented
20 years ago Logged In: YES user_id=436423
I agree -- this is touches on a very general question: should x derivative binding (or metabolism, biosynthesis, transport, etc.) be under x binding (etc.) generally?
At present we do not, as a general rule, have things structured that way; we should change everything, or leave as they are, consistently.
m
Original comment by: mah11
gocentral
commented
19 years ago Logged In: YES user_id=473796
This was discussed at the weekly GO editorial office and it was decided that this wouldn't be a good idea. The main problem is that once you have started to add parentage involving the functional groups that make up a molecule, it's difficult to say where to draw the line - eg. do you allow 'carbonyl group binding'? How about being more specific and saying 'carbon atom binding'? I don't think that kind of detail is needed and it would be a nightmare to implement!
Original comment by: girlwithglasses
gocentral
commented
19 years ago Original comment by: girlwithglasses
Should nucleotide binding ; GO:0000166 be a child of nucleoside binding ; GO:0001882 since a nucleotide is a nucleoside with phosphates attached?
This is a suggestion from Jules Jacobsen (jacobsen@ebi.ac.uk)
Reported by: jenclark
Original Ticket: "geneontology/ontology-requests/2015":https://sourceforge.net/p/geneontology/ontology-requests/2015