Closed fypoadmin closed 4 years ago
the google top hit when searching for "more than two" is not helpful...
Original comment by: Antonialock
well the poly part might work. polynucleate?
Original comment by: ValWood
I think multi vs poly is just latin vs greek? i.e. same thing different names
Original comment by: Antonialock
oh yeah poly is just more than one too. There must be a word...
Original comment by: ValWood
maybe just have the children -binucleate (e.g. binucleate aseptate might be interesting?) -three or more nuclei ?
Original comment by: Antonialock
This is tough. For exactly three, we could use 'trinucleate', but I don't know of a single word for "three or more", so we would have to use a clunky phrase in each term name.
Logical definitions wouldn't be possible without OWL, and I don't yet know how to do them in OWL (if it's possible). That's not a show-stopper, though, just an aside.
Which terms should have '(with) three or more nuclei' children?
Original comment by: mah11
punting to next curator meeting
v
Original comment by: ValWood
The new term request three or more nuclei migrate any existing terms which we know are 3+ to under the three or more nucelei term
(We will hang fire on this until we know a) whether the binucleate is referring to the compartment, or the entire cell, and b) at which point the cell si considered to be spearated (single cell vs chained cell)
Original comment by: ValWood
wiki says Need to find out when a cell is considered separate cells first. Asking Jacky and Mohan I don't think I ever asked, will mail jacky now...
Although do we absolutely need to know that to deal with the multinucleate issue? in https://github.com/pombase/curation/issues/691 was probably meant for this ticket!
closing because it's ancient and hasn't had any updates in literally years can reopen if we have new ideas some time ...
Every time I have used "multinucleate" I mean "more than 2 nuclei" but multinucleate is defined as 2 or more.
We need to come up with a way of describing "more than 2 " nuclei
Original comment by: ValWood