obsolete: anatomical cluster

[Chris Mungall]

DOS notes: Legacy term. FMA defines largely by exclusion, but based on usage it seems to mean something like 'a connected structure made up of heterologous parts'. It is used especially where some of those parts have fiat boundaries through them - e.g. vertebrate joints - where defining the contribution of the bones involved requires fiat boundaries through those bones. My worry is that this class could apply to almost anything, and in most cases there will be more useful classifications we could apply too. So the result will be multiple inheritance for no obvious gain. However, it has been so widely used that the term is likely to be maintained for the foresable future. It should probably not have any disjointness axioms associated with it.

Perhaps create a new class for 'connected structure of heterologous parts'

[Robert Druzinsky]

Although I agree that anatomical cluster "could apply to almost anything," I think that there is a need for this class or something like it. There are many, many named anatomical entities that are made up of "heterologous parts," so we need this class in order to include those named entities in our ontologies, right? I don't care what it is called.