Here's my understanding of the logic behind the way this ontology is structured, based on discussion some years ago with Istvan, Matt & others.
You can divide an insect’s integument into hardened regions (sclerites), flexible regions (conjunctiva) and joints (articulations). Integument also has invaginations and evaginations. Viewed from this perspective, rather than being a complex assemblage of integument, muscle, nerves, trachea etc, an appendage is simply viewed as an evagination, an appendage segment as a ring (tubular) sclerite.
Is this correct?
Uberon and the Drosophila Anatomy Ontology would view appendages and their segments as complex assemblages of integument, muscle, nerves, trachea etc, making part, overlaps relationships to these components from terms for appendages and appendage segments. I think we should be able to accommodate both views, linking your ontology to Uberon by classifying most terms you care about under region of integument. Terms like antenna and mesocoxa would need to be labelled (for Uberon) something like ‘integument of antenna’ & ‘integument of mesocoxa’, although I understand you'd want to keep simpler labels under some annotation property for you own use cases.
Does that make sense to you? It would be a shame not to be able to integrate, given the valuable perspective you bring and how it differs from that of model the organism biologists and medics who's shaped Uberon and DAO.
Here's my understanding of the logic behind the way this ontology is structured, based on discussion some years ago with Istvan, Matt & others.
You can divide an insect’s integument into hardened regions (sclerites), flexible regions (conjunctiva) and joints (articulations). Integument also has invaginations and evaginations. Viewed from this perspective, rather than being a complex assemblage of integument, muscle, nerves, trachea etc, an appendage is simply viewed as an evagination, an appendage segment as a ring (tubular) sclerite.
Is this correct?
Uberon and the Drosophila Anatomy Ontology would view appendages and their segments as complex assemblages of integument, muscle, nerves, trachea etc, making part, overlaps relationships to these components from terms for appendages and appendage segments. I think we should be able to accommodate both views, linking your ontology to Uberon by classifying most terms you care about under region of integument. Terms like antenna and mesocoxa would need to be labelled (for Uberon) something like ‘integument of antenna’ & ‘integument of mesocoxa’, although I understand you'd want to keep simpler labels under some annotation property for you own use cases.
Does that make sense to you? It would be a shame not to be able to integrate, given the valuable perspective you bring and how it differs from that of model the organism biologists and medics who's shaped Uberon and DAO.
CC @Clare72