W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bioschemas@w3.org > February 2018

Re: BioChemEntity and Ontology terms

From: Justin Clark-Casey <jc955@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:47:15 +0000
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
Message-ID: <901a55d5-41be-65a2-7dce-abb305984e03@cam.ac.uk>
On 13/02/18 08:47, Gray, Alasdair J G wrote:
> Hi Justin,
> 
> Sorry for the delay in the response to this question. I’ve been swamped with teaching responsibilities at the start of this semester. >
>> On 29 Jan 2018, at 11:59, Justin Clark-Casey <justinccdev@gmail.com <mailto:justinccdev@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On another note, is there a write-up anywhere of what we decided to do for BioChemEntity, especially regarding how existing ontologies were going to be used 
>> in the markup?  Something more narrative than spec-oriented (something with examples).  This may be in the mailing list thread but it's hard to extract from 
>> there.
> 
> We definitely need to do this. We also need to think about guidelines and best practice for developing profiles. My RA, Ken McLeod, has been analysing the 
> specifications with regard to improving the map2model tool. We have vastly different modelling approaches being deployed in the various profiles which is making 
> the tooling harder to develop.
> 
> The question is where should we put this information?

Perhaps another tab at the top of the bioschemas page?  Could be "Development" perhaps between "Groups" and "Specifications".  Or perhaps "Join", "Meetings" and 
"Groups" could all go under a "Development" tab, at the risk of deep menus.

For the actual write-up/work, I much prefer wikis compared to google docs or static websites.  If there is a "Development" tab then I would suggest a link to 
the github wiki for actually developing technical docs.

-- Justin
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 17:47:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 February 2018 17:47:42 UTC