I also think many types should be allowed. whether it should be mandatory depends on whether it must indicate an exact match, or it could link to a more general type where the exact concept is lacking. m. On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Leyla Garcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk> wrote: > On 19/09/2017 12:35, Justin Clark-Casey wrote: > >> I see that PhysicalThing.additionalType is shown as recommended [1] >> whereas BiologicalEntity.biologicalType [2] was mandatory. What is the >> reason for this change? I thought that this was one for the most critical >> properties (since most entity types will not have their own Bioschemas >> subclass). >> >> [1] http://bioschemas.org/bsc_specs/PhysicalEntity/specification/ >> [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XASuESIHU3bi1aXMxQS5-rCO >> QX0ugjMNkh68VF4co4Q >> >> -- Justin >> > > I might be wrong but I think the specifications are still work in > progress. I am taking your comment as a suggestion for PhysicalEntity. > Still, we should take a second look to M/R/O for PhysicalEntity and Record > and get to some agreements as a group. I think the point you raised makes > sense, additionalType should be mandatory (and it has been modified as > such). However, I am wondering if anyone has a case where the biological > type cannot be provided. Also, is ONE enough? Should be allowed MANY for > that field? And, if we allow many, will sameAs be assumed by applications? > > Regards, > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 14:55:57 UTC