W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bioschemas@w3.org > November 2017

Re: Protein representation with a Bioschemas context ()

From: Anders Riutta <anders.riutta@gladstone.ucsf.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:31:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJEHyTnUAZ=+Sxb9oBNBLSDcqu=PUY8dMZ7j=JJOG2qHFOZ84A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
> So, it looks like we are talking about something like
> https://github.com/BioSchemas/specifications/blob/master/Pro
> tein/examples/ProteinEntity-with-context.json where the context
> containing Gene and so will become the Bioschemas context and the IRIs will
> be agreed and then fixed. That example includes a third-party property
> which is always possible whenever schema.org or Bioschemas do not provide
> a better option.

To clarify, here's a list of what I'm hearing we'll have:

   1. Context published by Bioschemas, e.g., "
   2. Data published by each data provider, e.g.,
   3. Context published by each data provider, e.g., "
      - Option A: Data provider can re-use Bioschemas context: {"@context":
      - Option B: Data provider can create their own context, but, whenever
      possible, will use the IRIs from the Bioschemas context

3A will probably only be possible if the data provider is creating a new

Most data providers will need to use 3B, because their terms will not match
the terms from the Bioschemas context, e.g., "transcribedFrom" vs.
"comesFromGene". By re-using IRIs from the Bioschemas context, they will
make it possible for Bioschemas-compliant tools to work despite term
differences, because the data provider context and the Bioschemas context
will together make it clear that "comesFromGene" and "transcribedFrom" both
mean "http://semanticscience.org/resource/SIO_010081".
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:32:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:00 UTC