obsolete terms that are in the deprecated subset #1878
Comments
Clare72
added
not urgent
enhancement
|
I think we should NOT deprecate the collective embryonic terms (blastoderm embryo, gastrula embryo, dorsal closure embryo, extended germ band embryo, late embryo). They are part_of parents to many developing structure terms, and useful to curators trying to decide which of several terms in a developmental sequence to use (some of the developing structure definitions include stage information, but many do not). So while we don't attach data TO them, we definitely curate WITH them. |
|
There is a bit of an ontological problem with some of these part_of relationships, but a proper solution is complicated, so we can leave them for now (probably several years!) |
|
I have split the terms to keep out into a new ticket - #1882
|
I don't have any information about this subset, but it looks as though there was at some stage a plan to obsolete these terms as they have been added to a subset called 'deprecated' and they have a comment saying 'DEPRECATION WARNING'. Looking at the terms it seems as though they are overly specific stage terms (except for the 3 optic lobe terms), where it might be better to use FBdv for curation.
The stage terms seem to have mostly been used to annotate images.
In some cases (mainly embryo cycles, pupal and adult substages) these terms are either not used or an appropriate FBdv term is already also used - I think these terms can just be obsoleted now.
In other cases an appropriate FBdv term will need adding.
The embryonic optic lobe terms do not have definitions, but comments say that they are duplicates of the respective 'primordium' terms, so these should just be merged.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: