Improve clarity of pull-down options in form

[krchristie]

The ontology fix that @balhoff and @pgaudet put in DID fix the problem.

There was some confusion, though, because the word 'Anatomy' underneath relations like 'located in' was taken to mean something other than GO CC. I think this is a case where perhaps too much of the underlying data model gets exposed in the tool and we should think about updating the UI to make things clearer.

Originally posted by @vanaukenk in #222 (comment)

Yes, the word 'Anatomy' was taken to mean anatomy ontologies, for example, the anatomy ontology that MGI curators use in extensions. It is entirely unintuitive to curators when the menu uses a word that is used for a specific class of ontologies for anatomy terms when it actually means the cellular_component branch of GO rather than an anatomy ontology. Both @LiNiMGI and I were completely thrown by this is it is standard for MGI curators to create annotations that use both a cell type term (CL) and an anatomy term (EMAPA) as extensions for many of our annotations.

As this is a curation interface, the labels should be clear and intuitive to curators. This will improve both ease and quickness of navigating the interface, as well as consistency in annotating with the correct relationships.

[krchristie]

Here is a very simple suggestion to improve the confusion caused by labeling some options with the word "Anatomy".

Since many of the other pull down options list multiple options that are possible for a given selection, I think you could improve the clarity of the pull down options that use the word "Anatomy" to something like this:

occurs in
Cellular Component, Cell Type, Anatomy