Skeletal system vs skeleton

Permanent URL: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/uberon/references/reference_0000025

Authors and contributors:

Date: 2012

Document Type: ontology_design_pattern

Abstract

In common usage the terms skeletal system and skeleton may be used interchangeably, but they have different meanings in this ontology

Skeletons are part of the skeletal system

Uberon follows the FMA in using the terms 'skeletal system' and 'skeleton' very precisely, as the following partonomic view shows:

Note that we generalize the FMA notion of skeleton, to include cartilage elements, but the basic division remains the same: joints are NOT part of skeleton, they are part of the articular system (and by transitivity, part of the skeletal system).

Note the above partonomy is not pairwise part-disjoint - joints can be a part of bone parts.

Template

This is carried through for individual structures, the following template is followed:

Issues

There are a number of issues with the above scheme.

  1. It can lead to class inflation if we include two cuts of every skeletal subdivision. This can be managed somewhat automatically.

  2. It can be confusing for users and editors. Users may accidentally select the wrong term as the labels sound similar, and not everyone reads definitions closely. Editors may classify things wrongly.

  3. It leads to some curious unintuitive situations. For example, by the above definition, cranial sutures are not part of the skull, assuming the skull is part of the skeleton. However, cranial sutures would be part of the cranial skeletal system.

Future development

It is not clear if the above system should be maintained or if the skeleton terms should be merged into the skeletal system ones. More user input is required.


Index | Book | uberon.org