gocentral
commented
14 years ago I'm not quite sufficiently up to speed with the development-context meaning of "formation", especially how it differs from "assembly", but if there is a difference, then we have a ton of synonyms to remove or change scope, not only for assembly terms but also for biosynthesis.
The placement of cellular component [x] under anatomical [x] was done to death -- we spent a long time and many emails working towards our conclusion that a cellular component is an anatomical structure. We're not changing that aspect of it now (and it works fine for cellular component morphogenesis is_a anatomical structure morphogenesis), so the question is just about assembly versus formation.
There's some cleanup to do generally for cell projection terms. I think this was sort of on our radar but hasn't been done yet. We have both "cell projection morphogenesis" and "cell projection assembly", but most cell projections only have an assembly term, and there's some parentage inconsistency.
m
Original comment by: mah11
mating projection assembly peptide mating pheromone maturation involved in pheromone-induced unidirectional conjugation
this seems an odd name and def for this process.
The mating projection forms, as far as I know by moement of the underlying cytoskelelton etc and isn't reallt "assembly" as defined here (its usually referred to as "formation".
Perhaps if the term was renamed "mating projection morphogenesis" and redefined (to match its morophogenesis parent, and the parentage to "cell projection asembly" was removed, this would work better.
Actually, as Jane, jen and I were discussing recently, cellular componet assembly under anotomical structure formation seems wrong. I have a problem from a unicellular persepctive, and jen thinks this changes the meaning of "formation" in development.
Reported by: ValWood
Original Ticket: geneontology/ontology-requests/6802