NIH | National Cancer Institute | NCI Wiki  



Table of attachments.  Keep them handy for reference.


Table of suggested entities to use in the triplestore.  New entities should be added to this table for the "what do we need" portion of the work.  Addition of new columns will be done as we progress.  Currently this table is just a listing of thing without an indication of purpose (sparql support, vocabulary metadata, application metadata), representation, or equivalent element used in established external vocabularies.  Whether the element should be used with an IRI or literal target is not currently indicated.


elementdescription (and meant for what use)enumeration of valuessource (from table of attachments)
code

MLBK
identifier

MLBK
namespace

MLBK
rdfs:label

MLBK
prefix

MLBK
graph name

KOEM1
ConceptSchemevocab name

vocab aliasall names, including vocab nameincludes main alias/nameKOEM1
vocab version

KOEM1
load date

TMS

version date




vocabulary authorityname of person or organization creating vocab

download location

ancillary to the conversion authority, where we get

their converted data from.  if EVS is the conversion

authority, this is the location of the publication-ready

vocabulary.



conversion authority

e.g. who is responsible for the file format that gets

loaded into the triplestore:  For instance authority X

develops in Y format, and they generate OWL that

we load.  Or authority X distributes a spreadsheet, and

we convert that into RDF.



resource type
terminology, metadata
term


preferred term


definition


formality level


license

CC, CCBY, Apache, BSD-3, etc.  We might not be able

enumerate all of them.



ontology language

gives an idea of the nature of the sparql queries

people should be looking at, e.g. anonymous

classes are present or absent.

owl dl, owl full, rdf/s
contact info






  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Unknown User (decorons)

    Start with basic OMV framework for the metadata?

     

  2. Unknown User (decorons)

    Which are the metadata elements we are currently using?  Or is this still requirements?

  3. The scope above seems to be complete and we are proceeding to develop the elements for the metadata "ontology".