Re: Preferred ontology for PhysicalEntity.additionalType?

Hi,

This is an important question that goes beyond the specification. Does 
maybe the governance/tools groups have a suggestion here? Whatever is 
decided, will impact how the validation and other tools interpret the 
specification.

PhisycalEntity profiles, such as Protein, could, I guess, 
suggest/require a particular type. How should that be modeled? And, 
should profiles restrict this type to only one predefined value?

Regards,

On 19/09/2017 12:31, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> 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 12:40:10 UTC