The FYPO term is inheriting its ancestry by reasoning based on the ancestry of the xp'd GO terms. If I don't mess with it, it will follow any corrections GO makes to its structure. At present, GO has "telomere" as an exact synonym for "telomeric region", and until/unless they change that, there's nothing for me to do in FYPO.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It looks like the reasoner is correctly inferring
FYPO:0002387 decreased protein localization to telomeric heterochromatin is_a FYPO:0003803 decreased protein localization to telomere
at least in the obo file that I think is getting used for Canto, chado, etc.
Diff:
I'm not sure that is correct. The telomeric heterochromatin (a.k.a subtelomeric heterochromatin) is adjacent to the "telomere proper"
See: https://sourceforge.net/p/geneontology/ontology-requests/11254/
I raised a SF ticket for GO. If you use SO in the x-products it should be defined in relation to to subtelomere not telomere.
Let me know if this doesn't make sense, will reopen with low priority.
v
Diff:
The FYPO term is inheriting its ancestry by reasoning based on the ancestry of the xp'd GO terms. If I don't mess with it, it will follow any corrections GO makes to its structure. At present, GO has "telomere" as an exact synonym for "telomeric region", and until/unless they change that, there's nothing for me to do in FYPO.
note to self: also affects FYPO:0003752 and FYPO:0004137