I would expect an article to start with definition, it starts with structure of the project. First what is it then how it works. --ArazZeynili 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that. That's what I was searching for initially. I suppose one could infer the meaning, but still... la gaie 23:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're confusing AMIGO or something similar with what GO actually is? GO is a set of ontologies, as described in the first two paragraphs. Why talk about what GO is used for before saying what it is? Just my 2-cents :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the assertion that this article requires a definitive section. However, like all things in biology, a definition of anything is usually a function of evolution. Now that's a spanner in the ontological works. ;) But seriously, yes there needs to be a clear and concise way of explaining what the whole idea of Gene Ontology is and what it all means, in one or two sentences. Perhaps one of us can synthesise an explanation. Most biologists get so good at dealing with vast complexity that simplification becomes a secondary priority, and sometimes limiting. But the subject could benefit from construction of simple didactic 'ontologies'. Shinyapple (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.