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

Re: Why is PhysicalThing.additionalType recommended rather than mandatory

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:11:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpeTgTfMqf0UCWd2-L=wiHN=Grjb-YhU7DWQTViQTwgRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
Cc: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>, Leyla Garcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>, Justin Clark-Casey <justinccdev@gmail.com>, "public-bioschemas@w3.org" <public-bioschemas@w3.org>
On 19 September 2017 at 16:07, Gray, Alasdair J G <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
wrote:

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

Yup! To be clear, Schema.org definitions aren't going to say anything about
"mandatory", but we are interested in collecting pointers to
application-specific profiles that say "in such and such a context, the
following data shape is needed to achieve [some outcome]". If you can write
those down in Shex or SHACL format, so much the better :)

Dan


> 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>
> 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> 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,
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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
> 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.
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 15:12:24 UTC

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