Quick GO - Problems finding terms

[Bo.Servenius at astrazeneca.com]

Hi Midori,

You did not comment on Tom's statement below

These obsoleted terms - disappearing completely and reappearing in other
places are really annoying. 

BTW I think the obsoleted terms should be more clearly marked - e.g with a
change in term name - add "obsolete" in front of the term. Then it should be
less risk that you misinterprete a listing of terms from say a clustering of
function terms. As the situation is now obsoleted function terms are as
valid belonging to the function tree as correct function term and that I do
not think is very smart.

I think that we need some sort of more formalised handling of the terms that
are to be "obsoleted".


Yours

Bosse



> Well, it appears that these terms have been totally removed from the
> latest release of the GO (we update daily, I did a manual update this
> morning to check that this wasn't our data going out of synch), and that
> the terms have been replaced with identically named (but seemingly
> better defined) terms with different IDs. Midori - is this correct?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom
> 


--
This message is from the GOFriends moderated mailing list.  A list of public
announcements and discussion of the Gene Ontology (GO) project.
Problems with the list?           E-mail: owner-gofriends at geneontology.org
Subscribing   send   "subscribe"   to   gofriends-request at geneontology.org
Unsubscribing send   "unsubscribe"  to  gofriends-request at geneontology.org
Web:          http://www.geneontology.org/