- From: Leyla Garcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:36:40 +0100
- To: Justin Clark-Casey <justinccdev@gmail.com>, public-bioschemas@w3.org
On 19/09/2017 12:35, Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > I see that PhysicalThing.additionalType is shown as recommended [1] > whereas BiologicalEntity.biologicalType [2] was mandatory. What is > the reason for this change? I thought that this was one for the most > critical properties (since most entity types will not have their own > Bioschemas subclass). > > [1] http://bioschemas.org/bsc_specs/PhysicalEntity/specification/ > [2] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XASuESIHU3bi1aXMxQS5-rCOQX0ugjMNkh68VF4co4Q > > -- Justin I might be wrong but I think the specifications are still work in progress. I am taking your comment as a suggestion for PhysicalEntity. Still, we should take a second look to M/R/O for PhysicalEntity and Record and get to some agreements as a group. I think the point you raised makes sense, additionalType should be mandatory (and it has been modified as such). However, I am wondering if anyone has a case where the biological type cannot be provided. Also, is ONE enough? Should be allowed MANY for that field? And, if we allow many, will sameAs be assumed by applications? Regards,
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:37:04 UTC