Bioschemas descriptions missing

[ljgarcia]

@gtsueng @nsjuty you worked on the addition of sameAs, right? The Bioschemas descriptions got lost in the process, we need them back.

Affected drafts:

• [ ] ChemicalSubstance
• [ ] ComputationalTool
• [ ] ComputationalWorkflow
• [ ] Course
  • [ ] also check range of coursePrerequisites
• [ ] CourseInstance
  • [ ] also check range of offers
• [ ] DataCatalog
• [ ] Dataset
• [ ] Disease
• [ ] FormalParameter
• [ ] Gene
• [ ] Journal
• [ ] LabProtocol
• [ ] Phenotype (possibly going to deprecation)
• [ ] ProteinStructure
• [ ] PublicationIssue
• [ ] PublicationVolume
• [ ] Sample
• [ ] ScholarlyArticle
• [ ] SemanticTextAnnotation (possibly going to deprecation)
• [ ] Study (possibly going to deprecation)
• [ ] TrainingMaterial

[gtsueng]

@ljgarcia I can add them using the schema.org property 'disambiguatingDescription' in the jsonschema validation for profiles. Should I increase the version number for this fix? @albangaignard may need to update the profile generation script for it to actually display on the webpages

[ljgarcia]

Hi @gtsueng sounds good. It is a mistake that they were taken off so I would not increase the version. @albangaignard please check that the profile generation GitHub action takes care of this.

[gtsueng]

@ljgarcia The $validation portion of the JSON file (where the disambiguatingDescription is to be added) follows JSON schema formatting. Although we can add descriptors like schema:disambiguatingDescription here for our purposes, be aware that most JSON-schema validators will simply ignore these descriptors. Third party tools for viewing JSON schema (including the DDE) may also ignore these descriptors in effect hiding the bioschemas description. To bypass this, we originally went with simply merging the Bioschemas description into the schema.org description for the JSON Schema description field. That's why they appear to be missing for many files, but upon closer inspection the Bioschemas descriptions are there, just no longer delineated.

[ljgarcia]

@nsjuty @albangaignard @ivanmicetic @sneumann @egonw thoughts? I would be in favor of keeping the Bioschemas description separated from the original schema description. So schema:disambiguatingDescription looks good to me even if it is ignored by validators... I am not even sure what a validator would do with the property description or disambiguating description.

[nsjuty]

It would be good to at least reference the original schema.org description. I think the shortest answer would be to keep the Bioschemas description and point back to the schema.org one? Whether thats in the "description" or in the disambiguation, I don't mind actually. I aslo would not increase version number here..