W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bioschemas@w3.org > March 2018


From: ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:16:09 +0000
To: public-bioschemas@w3.org
Message-ID: <ef799078b1a35aad12ceef82077d3fea@ebi.ac.uk>
Hi all,

I just realized no one seems to be involved in the BioChemEntity 
specification, see 

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 

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2018 01:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:03 UTC