Re: Protein representation with a Bioschemas context ()

I agree.  As Alasdair and Franck say, I feel that a major benefit of schema.org is in providing agreed upon minimal terms that aid findability.

Pragmatically, data sources would always be free to use their own terms and additionalTypes (I don't think that bioschemas can or should forbid this), but they 
should be aware that there are agreed upon terms that will make their data findable/usable by a distributed community, rather than only by a few applications 
that are especially aware of their markup.

I also agree with Stephen that relying on a central collator is too much overhead.  To me, this introduces a single point of failure that conflicts with the 
spirit of the web.

-- Justin Clark-Casey

On 14/11/17 12:02, Gray, Alasdair J G wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I think Franck’s email clearly explains the situation here.
> 
> Schema.org <http://schema.org> is about everyone buying in to use a common set of terms to markup their content. If they buy-in to that then they get the 
> benefit. Otherwise you are just on the linked data web.
> 
> Bioschemas is about making Schema.org <http://schema.org> relevant for the life sciences. We have agreed as a community that we prefer to reuse an existing 
> ontology term than mint our own. However, to me, it means that we do need to select a single ontology term. It is through this agreement that we will see 
> benefit whilst also keeping the route to adoption straightforward.
> 
> Alasdair
> 
>> On 14 Nov 2017, at 10:21, Franck Michel <franck.michel@cnrs.fr <mailto:franck.michel@cnrs.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'd like to bring a few elements into the discussion wrt. aliases.
>>
>> In JSON-LD, aliases are just a handy short-cut notation with a local scope: an alias just applies within the scope of the context where it is defined. And 
>> more importantly, an alias should not bear any meaning. The first thing a consumer app does with JSON-LD is to expand all terms, which immediately removes all 
>> aliases.
>>
>> Hence, if I use theBioschemas.org <http://bioschemas.org/>default context:
>> @context {  "Gene": {  "@id":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/SO_0000704"} ... }
>> I will typically write:  "@type": [ "BioChemEntity", "Gene" ]
>>
>> But I may well write a document with a custom alias:
>> @context {  "GeneAlias": {  "@id":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/SO_0000704"} ... }
>> and write:   "@type": [ "BioChemEntity", "GeneAlias" ]
>> With:
>> @context {  "obo": {  "@id":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/"} ... }
>> I would write:   "@type": [ "BioChemEntity", "obo:SO_0000704" ]
>> Or I could even not use any alias:   "@type": [ "BioChemEntity","http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/SO_0000704"]
>>
>> These are all equivalent from the point of view of a data consumer.
>>
>> In my view, the default context should be a useful guide for those annotating data withBioschemas.org <http://bioschemas.org/>markup, but alias names should 
>> not matter at all. What matters is the URIs to which aliases resolve.
>>
>> I feel like the solution of agreed pre-defined URIs, whatever the aliases used, is more sustainable. After all,schema.org <http://schema.org/>advocates for 
>> the use of specific agreed-upton terms. If one uses them, their pages are more likely to be discoverable. They can chose to use other terms if this is 
>> convenient for them, but then there is not guarantee that the pages will be discovered as easily.
>>
>> Franck.
> 
> Alasdair J G Gray
> Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
> Assistant Professor in Computer Science,
> School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> (Athena SWAN Bronze Award)
> Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh UK.
> 
> Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk <mailto:A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
> Web: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
> Office: Earl Mountbatten Building 1.39
> Twitter: @gray_alasdair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled Document
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> */Heriot-Watt University is The Times & The Sunday Times International University of the Year 2018/*
> 
> Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and 
> educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences.
> 
> This email is generated from the Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes:
> 
>  1. Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under number SC000278
>  2. Edinburgh Business School a Charity Registered in Scotland, SC026900. Edinburgh Business School is a company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland
>     with registered number SC173556 and registered office at Heriot-Watt University Finance Office, Riccarton, Currie, Midlothian, EH14 4AS
>  3. Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a private limited company
>     registered is Scotland with registered number SC271030 and registered office at Research & Enterprise Services Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh,
>     EH14 4AS. 
> 
> The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of 
> its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 12:42:06 UTC