Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[Gofriends] Mistake in GO structure?

Wacek Kusnierczyk waku at
Mon Jan 17 10:24:21 PST 2011

On 1/17/11 12:12 PM, David Hill wrote:
> I think the major issue that I have with your proposal is that this is 
> very specific to organisms that have a 'respiratory system'. The 
> original intent of the 'respiratory gaseous exchange' term was to 
> cover gaseous exchange in all organisms. 

But not in the current form, where you explicitly refer to 'larger' 
vertebrates.  So my reading was *obviously* that we're talking about 
what's specific to organisms that have respiratory system.

> We did intend gaseous exchange to be all inclusive, literally the 
> exchange between an organism and its environment. 

Okay, but then in the case of 'larger' organisms you blend 
breathing/ventilation with the actual gas exchange.

> The respiratory system term was meant to cover the gaseous exchange in 
> organisms that have a 'respiratory system'. The function of the 
> respiratory system would be either is_a or part_of the gaseous 
> exchange process depending on where gaseous exchange begins and ends. 
> I think you have made a good argument that gaseous exchange includes 
> an aspect of the function of the circulatory system.

Whatever the intention, the current state is arguable wrong, and surely 
confusing.  I don't insist on my version, it was an analysis intended to 
explain my view.  Without change, I think, the current state is begging 
for trouble.


More information about the go-friends mailing list