Obsoletion of subclasses of 'cell component' that are duplicates of GO terms

[Clare72]

Many of our terms under 'cell component' are not fly-specific and have matching terms under GO:0005575 'cellular component'. We should obsolete these terms in favour of using the GO terms (I think FlyBase curation already uses GO for 'cellular component' terms).

We should keep anything that is not in GO or has fly-specific detail distinguishing it from the generic GO term.

[SianGramates]

I think we need to discuss this before doing it.

[Clare72]

Sure, just noticed we had a lot of these - looks like some were already obsoleted for this reason a while back. No hurry to proceed with this.

[gm119]

These 'duplicates' were definitely looked at before as you said, and I think the ones that are left are the ones where there wasn't an obvious GO equivalent at the time (or changes to GO were needed first). Of course, GO may have changed since original work was done, so it may now be possible to get rid of a few more. Am trying to find relevant ticket(s) where this was discussed previously, in case it has reasons for keeping terms - will let you know when I find them