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

Preferred ontology for PhysicalEntity.additionalType?

From: Justin Clark-Casey <justinccdev@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:31:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAME9NR9wzUPv96Wza+EQ=+FPaiAOz_J5av+ZjnHkpL9Nk1ivPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
Hi all,

>From [1], I see that we are now proposing that
PhysicalEntity.additionalType (via Thing) show the type of entity in
Bioschemas by pointing to an URL for an ontology term.  This replaces
BiologicalEntity,biologicalType, which used a controlled vocabulary of
strings "gene", "phenotype", etc.  Leyla gives an example from the semantic
science ontology [2].

Are we planning to recommend particular ontologies for additionalType?  Or
are we expecting search engines to use ontology mappings (e.g. [3]) to
handle cases where people use different ontologies for the same concept?

In InterMine we have the particular use case that any user can extend our
provided data model with new classes.  Since we need to make term selection
as easy as possible (and preferably consistent with the rest of the model)
we'll probably end up guiding them in some fashion.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bioschemas/2017Sep/0013.html
[2] http://semanticscience.org/resource/SIO_010043.rdf
[3] http://www.pistoiaalliance.org/projects/ontologies-mapping/

-- Justin Clark-Casey
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 11:31:41 UTC

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