Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review & Mapping by Biocaddie DATS [Metadata Working Group 3] #1196

Open
proccaserra opened this issue Jun 3, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@proccaserra
Copy link

commented Jun 3, 2016

*linked to the following issue, "Improving Dataset descriptions":
#1083

*NIH BD2K BioCaddie DATS slides:
https://biocaddie.org/sites/default/files/d7/webinar/551/datameddatsv2-webinar-1jun2016.pdf

presented during the following seminar:
https://biocaddie.org/events/webinars/special-webinar-datameds-dats-model-annotated-schema-org

*Mapping File between BioCaddie DATS elements and Schema.org/LifeScience extension:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1la7Cpg1TAURNgjHyzhjf3MH8KWvO1ASjt7APvkCpXx0/edit#gid=0

by @agbeltran & @proccaserra

schema.org
-No notion of Grant , Funding agency (but there is sponsor)
-No notion of Data Model, Specification, Standard (closest match: DigitalDocument and relation

lifescience-extension
-No notion of variable (dependent or independent)
-Need to extend/refine Substance to allow talking about Protein, RNA, DNA, small molecules.
-Study restricted to 'Medical Study' (ie only Human can be participants)
-TreatmentAgent only available in the context of
-Treatment intensity only available to 'physicalExercise'
-No notion of 'Organism' except in the context of an infection agent.

work with Bioschema.org group too.

@agbeltran

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 3, 2016

Also related to #1991, #383, #1190.

@danbri danbri self-assigned this Sep 20, 2016

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 21, 2016

Thanks for theseI For the core schema.org issues:

1.) "No notion of Grant , Funding agency (but there is sponsor)".

In http://schema.org/docs/releases.html#g1083 we have now 'funder' property, "A person or organization that supports (sponsors) something through some kind of financial contribution." (sub-property of sponsor)

This addresses the most basic usecase, but does not let us directly talk about a specific grant. Events, organizations, creative works, and also people can have funders; but we don't have grants as a type, or the somewhat related notion of a project. I would be interested to look into the latter first, as it could also help improve our coverage of opensource software efforts and suchlike. Perhaps @rvguha has thoughts on how we could handle this. You could take the view that a project is a subtype of Organization, or you could model things using existing (longer-lived multi-project) organizations, with the "project" handled more as their CreativeWork output. I'm not sure which works best.

How much interest / value is there in having a type for Grant?

2.) "No notion of Data Model, Specification, Standard (closest match: DigitalDocument and relation"

This is interesting. Could you give some specific examples? Are we concerned here solely with datasets, or would this apply to ScholarlyArticle and other works in general too? Is the data widely available?

@agbeltran

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 21, 2016

Thanks @danbri for all the comments.

On point 1).

Since @proccaserra posted the issue, we followed the addition of https://schema.org/funder and are using it (see e.g. https://github.com/biocaddie/WG3-MetadataSpecifications/blob/master/json-schemas/contexts/dataset_sdo_context.jsonld).

I agree that looking at the addition of Project in the first instance would be better to tackle this from a more generic perspective.

I think that having Grant would be useful (at least from the academic perspective). Issue #383 is also about this and it refers to the FundRef API (http://help.crossref.org/fundref-api) that represents funders/works/grants and it would be great to link to it from our project's perspective (DataMed/DATS).

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 1, 2016

What would you suggest for a supertype for Grant? (and/or Project?). Is "Funding" in #383 broadly same as a Grant? (/cc @hubgit). We should probably move to #383 for that discussion...

([update] re-reading #383 seems the terminology moved towards Grant eventually from Funding)

@dr-shorthair

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 18, 2017

Of course 'Project' is probably a sub-class of 'Action' - being a time-bounded thing with inputs and outputs. 'Grant' is a kind of academic shorthand for 'externally funded project'. I did a bit of a survey of how the notion of 'project' is modeled in various vocabularies. The DBPedia ontology has far and away the best model with least contextual baggage.
See http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Project and also http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ResearchProject

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.