- From: ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:16:09 +0000
- To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
Hi all, I just realized no one seems to be involved in the BioChemEntity specification, see http://bioschemas.org/types/BioChemEntity/specification/ BioChemEntity was the agreed named for PhysicalEntity during the last meeting in October. PhysicalEntity and DataRecord were defined during the BioHackathon mainly between Michel Dumontier and myself, with collaboration from Olga Giraldo and Alexander Garcia as well, taking into account previous versions/alternatives of it. Both of them were presented in October when all attendees discussed names, properties ans so on. PhysicalEntity came from BiologicalEntity which I defined as part of the work done for the Protein specification (that later evolved into a profile). The BiologicalEntity was presented during the second meeting and people liked it so it was adopted as a "metatype". It has been an effort where multiple people have participated. Giving the history behind BioChemEntity, I am not sure v.0.1 is accurate. For DataRecord v.0.1 seems right. And, there is no profile for it. There is probably no mandatory fields but we still have recommendations regarding how to use mainEntityOfPage/mainEntity in order to link to a DataRecord or url in order to link to the official web page for this entity. I also think isContainedIn/contains could link to isPartOf/hasPart as defined by the Relation Ontology. I know Keneth and Ricardo have been working on some improvements. Just let me know if you need any extra help for BioChemEntity, I am happy to collaborate. Regards,
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2018 01:16:40 UTC