xxx muscle terms

[slaulederkind]

Why is it that the terms for skeletal muscles end with "muscle" sometimes and sometimes not? For example these sibling terms:

flexor cruris lateralis muscle +
flexor digitorum profundus
flexor hallucis brevis muscle
flexor hallucis longus
gastrocnemius +

[cmungall]

Good Q. We always suffix where there is potential for ambiguity, but for
longer less ambiguous names we often contract. This seems generally to
be the case for wikipedia, other AOs, ...

I defer to @RDruzinsky here

On 16 Nov 2016, at 9:16, slaulederkind wrote:

Why is it that the terms for skeletal muscles end with "muscle"
sometimes and sometimes not? For example these sibling terms:

flexor cruris lateralis muscle +
flexor digitorum profundus
flexor hallucis brevis muscle
flexor hallucis longus
gastrocnemius +

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1295

[RDruzinsky]

I don't think that it matters. Since they are all muscles, I don't think that "muscle" must be in the name. We should just decide one way or the other and make them all consistent.

[RDruzinsky]

Upon further reflection, I think that we should eliminate "muscle" from the
names of the muscles.

Sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Nov 16, 2016 12:55 PM, "Chris Mungall" notifications@github.com wrote:

Good Q. We always suffix where there is potential for ambiguity, but for
longer less ambiguous names we often contract. This seems generally to
be the case for wikipedia, other AOs, ...

I defer to @RDruzinsky here

On 16 Nov 2016, at 9:16, slaulederkind wrote:

Why is it that the terms for skeletal muscles end with "muscle"
sometimes and sometimes not? For example these sibling terms:

flexor cruris lateralis muscle +
flexor digitorum profundus
flexor hallucis brevis muscle
flexor hallucis longus
gastrocnemius +

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1295

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1295 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEEgOML-0-1Et2Xx7VPpzz9JQwUpp3Gwks5q-1G0gaJpZM4K0Kl-
.

[cmungall]

What about cases where this would create ambiguity, e.g. pterygoid?

[fbastian]

Plus it's bothersome to have to look at the parent to determine what a term is about.

[cmungall]

Good point.

A compromise could be to treat 'muscle' as redundant and exclude it, if the label already has a muscle type in like like 'flexor'.

[RDruzinsky]

Okay, I'm convinced. Why don't we be consistent and just add muscle to all
of the names?

Robert E. Druzinsky, Ph.D.
Clinical Associate Professor
Dept. of Oral Biology
College of Dentistry
University of Illinois at Chicago
801 S. Paulina
Chicago, IL 60612
druzinsk@uic.edu

Office: 312-996-0406
Lab: 312-996-0629
Website: www.peerj.com/RobertDruzinsky

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Chris Mungall notifications@github.com
wrote:

Good point.

A compromise could be to treat 'muscle' as redundant and exclude it, if
the label already has a muscle type in like like 'flexor'.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1295 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEEgOPy6lAC3mjekf-bdPg6DpTzKh62Cks5q_HvtgaJpZM4K0Kl-
.