Re: Why is PhysicalThing.additionalType recommended rather than mandatory

Perhaps we should have a separation between the proposal of new types and their usage for certain resources.

It is clear that we need a new type for BiologicalEntity, it is not clear to me that Proteins, Genes, and Samples all need to have the same mandatory, recommended, and optional set of properties. Perhaps for new types, we should stick to Schema.org<http://schema.org> style descriptions and then only introduce MG, CD, and CV in usage profiles (specifications) over these types.

Alasdair

On 19 Sep 2017, at 15:55, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu<mailto:michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>> wrote:

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<mailto: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-rCOQX0ugjMNkh68VF4co4Q

-- 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,




Alasdair J G Gray
Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Assistant Professor in Computer Science,
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
(Athena SWAN Bronze Award)
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh UK.

Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk<mailto:A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
Web: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
Office: Earl Mountbatten Building 1.39
Twitter: @gray_alasdair










________________________________

Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences.

This email is generated from the Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes:

  1.  Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under number SC000278
  2.  Edinburgh Business School a Charity Registered in Scotland, SC026900. Edinburgh Business School is a company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland with registered number SC173556 and registered office at Heriot-Watt University Finance Office, Riccarton, Currie, Midlothian, EH14 4AS
  3.  Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a private limited company registered is Scotland with registered number SC271030 and registered office at Research & Enterprise Services Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS.

The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.