Search Mailing List Archives
[Gofriends] Mistake in GO structure?
waku at idi.ntnu.no
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
More information about the go-friends