Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

algae as a community rather than organism #97

Open
diatomsRcool opened this issue Feb 6, 2019 · 10 comments
Open

algae as a community rather than organism #97

diatomsRcool opened this issue Feb 6, 2019 · 10 comments

Comments

@diatomsRcool
Copy link
Contributor

Right now, algae is in ecocore as a subclass of organism. Should this be moved to be a subclass of collection of organisms?
It's hard to say because "algae" can refer to many cells of one species or many cells of multiple species. In the lab, a culture or strain of algae is treated kind of like an organism - as the unit of experimentation. One cell is called an "algal cell". Algae is plural. Alga is singular. Some times a seaweed is called an alga, but its not clear that these are truly multicellular organisms.
@ramonawalls do you have any thoughts?

@cmungall
Copy link
Contributor

cmungall commented Feb 7, 2019 via email

@diatomsRcool
Copy link
Contributor Author

good point

@ramonawalls
Copy link
Collaborator

Ditto what Chris said. What is the use case for including this term? That should determine whether we need to define it as an organism, collection of organisms, or something else.

@diatomsRcool
Copy link
Contributor Author

The use case is making assertions about algivores, planktivores, etc. Being able to say that an algivore eats algae.

@jhammock
Copy link

We have gotten datasets mentioning algae as a food class. I think I've seen it as a habitat class too- though I think that's usually subcategories of algae by growth habit or environmental context. Encrusting, filamentous, benthic...

@cmungall
Copy link
Contributor

How about a union class. See http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/go/imports/go-taxon-groupings.owl

We could make this more part of the ncbitaxon release as an extension module. Seems this may be a better place than ecocore?

@diatomsRcool
Copy link
Contributor Author

ok, I assume that requires an issue submitted here https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology?

@cmungall
Copy link
Contributor

cmungall commented Aug 2, 2019 via email

@diatomsRcool
Copy link
Contributor Author

diatomsRcool commented Aug 20, 2019

I will do a PR, but I would like feedback on the taxonomic groups I include. How about:

  • cyanobacteria
  • dinophyceae
  • cryptophytes
  • euglenozoa
  • haptophytes
  • rhodophytes
  • stramenopiles
  • chlorophytes

Some of these are partially autotrophic, partially heterotrophic. There are some judgement calls in here. @jhammock

@jhammock
Copy link

For habitat and trophic purposes the precise trophic mode of the algal taxon hasn't been relevant in my experience, so that doesn't worry me. I think that list is pretty comprehensive. In our classification we've got one node possibly not covered: Glaucophytes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants