Logged In: YES
user_id=802919

I like "biological role" more than "biological function"
even though we probably have to keep both terms.

I hope to incorporate most definitions before the release.

However...

Nutrient

I have problems with the above definition because it mixes
the two categories: elements (=atoms) and compounds. Its
children are micronutrients and macronutrients.
Micronutrients are almost universally understood as
elements, while macronutrients means either elements (in
biology) or compounds such as proteins, carbohydrats and
fats (in nutrition) => see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macronutrient

I am in favour of defining nutrients as elements, not
compounds. Vitamins are often included in nutrients but
probably should be not.

As for "food": it is not synonymous with nutrients. It
belongs to application ontology, not biology. Both food and
fertilizer contain nutrients. On the other hand, some
components of food are practically not metabolised and
therefore cannot be said to be nutrients in either sense.

After our exchange of "reagent" definitions, I don't see why
laboratory chemical should be replaced by reagent: reagent
is_a laboratory chemical. We already mentioned buffer
components and solvents. Inert gases like argon that are
used in the lab to create "anaerobic" conditions are not
reagents (supposedly they do not react).

I agree that "health care products" is an awful term and any
alternative will be welcome. However this is placeholder for
the stuff used in medicine (veterinary medicine, dentistry,
etc) includig drugs and diagnostic aid, probably something
else, like antiseptics.

As for drugs: the fact that they are used on model organisms
does not change their use as drugs.

Kirill