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

Re: New property for BioChemEntity

From: Leyla Garcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:13:15 +0100
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org, BATISTA Dominique <dominique.batista@france-bioinformatique.fr>
Message-ID: <b618aa4a-6737-2999-2f62-2ae287f011ef@ebi.ac.uk>
Hello,

It is in addition to additionalType. additionalType links to ontology 
terms, preferredLabel would point to a plain text. Having just one 
preferred label in English (any other language would be optional) would 
make things easier for validation (I think but Dominique can tell better).

Regards,

On 16/10/2017 17:08, Stephen Anyango wrote:
>
> Hello Leyla,
>
> Is this in addition to additionalType which is also meant to be an 
> enumeration of ontological terms labelling the profile? An example 
> would suffice for clarity.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Stephen Anyango
> PDBe
> EMBL-EBI
> On 16-Oct-17 4:40 PM, Leyla Garcia wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have discussed with Rafael the need of a way to refer to a 
>> particular profile from a type specification. I think adding a new 
>> property could work. Please see below.
>>
>> Type: BioChemEntity
>> Property: PreferredLabel
>> Expected type: Text
>> schema.org description: Preferred label in plain text for this entity
>> Bioschemas description: The preferred label corresponds to the 
>> Bioschemas profile. Please refer to the Bioschemas profile 
>> enumeration to find the available labels <some link will go here>. 
>> Although multiple languages are allowed, a label in English should 
>> always be provided. If the label you are looking for does not exist, 
>> please contact Bioschemas.org <some link will go here>.
>> Bioschemas restrictions: Minimum, Many (at least one in English), 
>> Enumeration.
>>
>> Validators could use this label to "know" better what the minimum, 
>> recommended and so really are as they change from profile to profile.
>>
>> I do not think at this point that such property would be 
>> needed/useful for Record. If you think it is, then we could propose 
>> it for Thing rather than BioChemEntity. Please share your thoughts.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 16 October 2017 16:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:59 UTC