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
Rephrase definition of gist:Category to avoid the word "informally" #968
Comments
From @mkumba |
How about "without formal semantics"? I am more surprised by this statement: "Things that can be thought of as types are usually Categories." Without more detail about when to use categories vs classes, it seems to me misleading or confusing. I would advocate dropping it. |
This reflects the two ways we can represent a hierarchy of types either as a class hierarchy or as a hierarchy or gist:Category's. For example, you can have a class hierarchy of diseases, where each class correspond to a type of disease at some level of granularity. Or, because there are 1000s of diseases, you can represent that hierarchy where each disease is an (possibly indirect) instance of a gist:Category. |
How about "without formal semantics"? |
Hierarchy of gist:Category's - is this done using skos:broader? |
No, we use |
@uscholdm I'm well aware of the two modeling approaches. What I don't think we should say is, without explanation, context, or nuance, "Things that can be thought of as types are usually Categories" (emphasis mine). |
Two alternatives come to mind;
I think both are saying the same thing. |
The rephrasing of the first sentence to "A concept or label used to categorize other instances without formal semantics." sounds good to me, thank you. |
@irinafilitovich I thought it made sense to assign this to you. |
Currently we have:
gist:Category skos:definition "A concept or label used to categorize other instances informally. Things that can be thought of as types are usually Categories."^^xsd:string
In the field of Life Sciences there are lots of taxonomies of domain-specific terms that we're are advocating to interpret as subclasses of Categories, these terms are used to categorize other instances quite formally (as in officially, importantly) from the perspective of subject matter expert.
Is there a way to rephrase the definition of gist:Category to avoid the word "informally"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: