🖇 Project ~ MHealthPeople

[shnizzedy]

How does 02/23 mentalhealthtechnology3 + OCEAN :: Project :: project relate to _02/23 mentalhealthtechnology3 + OCEAN :: Project :: MHealthPeople_index_? In our structure to keep spreadsheet, we have

• project is named person

  or

• person is named project

, either of which I think is incorrect. My intuition is that person is the subject and project is the object.

• Person provides information about project?
• Person created project?
• Person maintains project?
• Person reviewed project?
• Person uses project?
• Person used project?
• Person recommended project?
• Person named project?
• Something else?

[anirudh4792]

MHealthPeople_index is the mental health team/people involved in the project.

eg., for tingle, the MHealthPeople_index would refer to Matter Lab (name of the Lab) and its members Arno Klein, Jon Clucas...

In most cases, if a project (eg app, wearable) had a research publication associated with it, the authors and their labs became MHealthPeople_index

• Person provides information about project? - Nope, but thank you for giving me this idea, which would be useful during future crowdsourcing-
• Person created project? - In most cases, yes- Person maintains project? - no, but this will be covered in our project evaluation criteria (version date)
• Person reviewed project? - no, will be relevant for future crowdsourcing
• Person uses project?
• Person used project? -- handled separately through internal_mapping. eg LENA is a project, and this 'project' has been used by a research team, which was another project
• Person recommended project? - future use case
• Person named project? - lol who named mindlogger
• Something else? *

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Jon Clucas notifications@github.com wrote:

Assigned #80 https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80 to @anirudh4792 https://github.com/anirudh4792.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80#event-1567146133, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstdsgLtwoEJSmYPFKtess8oXbNu0zks5tnRoLgaJpZM4TO-HC .

[shnizzedy]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for you to answer each bullet; those were intended as choose-one options (this one? or this one?)

So here, if a project has a research publication, the MHealthPeople in the same row on the project sheet are the authors? If a project has more than one publication, the author linked on the project is an author of all of the publications? What does it mean to have an author without a publication?

[anirudh4792]

At this moment, these considerations are irrelevant and not needed for this case (i.e., research publications and authors need not come into the picture)

If a project has an MHealthPeople_index, it refers to the lab/people involved in that project.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Jon Clucas notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for you to answer each bullet; those were intended as choose-one options (this one? or this one?) https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/79#issuecomment-380262274

So here, if a project has a research publication, the MHealthPeople in the same row on the project sheet are the authors? If a project has more than one publication, the author linked on the project is an author of all of the publications? What does it mean to have an author without a publication?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80#issuecomment-380263336, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstagmAn30YATqObWBzS86n0DsJiGNks5tnS1YgaJpZM4TO-HC .

[shnizzedy]

At this moment, these considerations are irrelevant and not needed for this case (i.e., research publications and authors need not come into the picture)

Do you mean we have irrelevant columns in some of these workbooks? Or does "at this moment" mean that these columns are relevant but lower priority? As I work through the columns, how do I know which ones to skip and/or come back to?

If a project has an MHealthPeople_index, it refers to the lab/people involved in that project.

Involved in any capacity?

[shnizzedy]

Would project dcterms:contributor person be a fair predicate to use for this relationship?

Definition: An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource. Comment: Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service.

[anirudh4792]

"Do you mean we have irrelevant columns in some of these workbooks?" - No, we do not have irrelevant columns in some or any of these workbooks

Or does "at this moment" mean that these columns are relevant but lower priority? - Apologies. The phrase "at this moment" can be forgotten.

The only statement that needs to be considered is If a project has an MHealthPeople_index, it refers to the lab/people involved in that project. Nothing more, nothing lessAs I work through the columns, how do I know which ones to skip and/or come back to? - nothing needs to be skippedInvolved in any capacity? - my preference is to have just 'involved in' which refers to involved at some capacity. Would project dcterms:contributor http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-contributor person be a fair predicate to use for this relationship? - my preference is to have just 'involved in' . However, I cannot think of a single instance where contributor would be incorrect.Hope this clears things

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Jon Clucas notifications@github.com wrote:

Would project dcterms:contributor http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-contributor person be a fair predicate to use for this relationship?

Definition: An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource. Comment: Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80#issuecomment-380481861, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstSWyAMM-I8l9LyDYGHIDQxXwiW95ks5tnhkggaJpZM4TO-HC .

[shnizzedy]

For each relationship, we need a property, and each property needs a definition.

For #76, #74, #75 & #77, I'm finding properties in this order of preference:

1. Use the property given in structure_to_keep. If 1. is missing, undefined, or doesn't make sense: 2.1. If I have confidence that I know the relationship, use the relationship that I suspect. 2.2. If I am unsure, open a question issue to ask @anirudh4792, the expert who constructed the workbooks.

Since you are the expert regarding the structure of these workbooks, I fully defer to your expertise in defining the relationships, but if the options I give are insufficient, I still need one or more defined predicates to proceed.

---

In this case,

1. should we proceed with contributor in addition to "involved in"?
2. I need an IRI and/or a definition for "involved in" in order to use that property.

[anirudh4792]

Thanks Jon! your order of preference sounds good.

In this case,

1. I think we proceed with contributor only and not have 'involved in' at all, since contributor fits the bill for all entities.

Does this sound correct - If I cannot find a term with an already existing IRI/definition that accurately defines the relationship and what I am trying to indicate, can we add our own term and give it a definition (create our own IRI?)? eg addresses; synonym - deals with, definition - directs attention to an issue with the intent to improve it

Do you find existing IRIs in snowmed, schema.org, bioontology etc.?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jon Clucas notifications@github.com wrote:

For each relationship, we need a property, and each property needs a definition.

For #76 https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/76, #74 https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/74, #75 https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/75 & #77 https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/77, I'm finding properties in this order of preference:

1. Use the property given in structure_to_keep https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bQmu1emZ_9J1qfrzTi2CgTELME4mRqn74hMwbY9wV-A/edit#gid=1162864977 . If 1. is missing, undefined, or doesn't make sense: 2.1. If I have confidence that I know the relationship, use the relationship that I suspect. 2.2. If I am unsure, open a question issue to ask @anirudh4792 https://github.com/anirudh4792, the expert who constructed the workbooks.

Since you are the expert regarding the structure of these workbooks, I fully defer to your expertise in defining the relationships, but if the options I give are insufficient, I still need one or more defined predicates to proceed.

In this case,

1. should we proceed with contributor in addition to "involved in"?
2. I need an IRI and/or a definition for "involved in" in order to use that property.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80#issuecomment-380497751, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstceZzoMtOus0sc79DzrLPRTqkZxxks5tniNogaJpZM4TO-HC .

[shnizzedy]

I think we proceed with contributor only and not have 'involved in' at all, since contributor fits the bill for all entities.

Cool! Will do!

Does this sound correct - If I cannot find a term with an already existing IRI/definition that accurately defines the relationship and what I am trying to indicate, can we add our own term and give it a definition (create our own IRI?)? eg addresses; synonym - deals with, definition - directs attention to an issue with the intent to improve it

Yep, with a preference towards finding existing IRIs for inferencing power (if we define a property, we can infer over any statements we or others make using that statement; if we use a property already in use elsewhere, we can additionally infer over any already existing statements using that property).

A relevant point of clarification here: we can also specify domains (what classes of subject can do this thing) and/or ranges (what classes of objects can this thing be done to) for properties.

Do you find existing IRIs in snowmed, schema.org, bioontology etc.?

Yep. schema.org and dcterms are pretty robust but anywhere that has a good definition can do.

[shnizzedy]

One other note about definitons: we can take them from elsewhere too. Here's what I'm putting for Wearable:

mhdb:Wearable rdfs:subClassOf schema:Product ;
    rdfs:comment """A smart electronic device (electronic device with micro-controller(s)) that can be worn on the body as implants or accessories."""@en ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearable_technology> ;
    rdfs:label """Wearable"""@en .

[shnizzedy]

For project GOLIAH, the MHealthPeople_index column has "199, 110, 111" but the MHealthPeople spreadsheet has no 199. Is that supposed to be 99?

[anirudh4792]

resolved and deleted - no 199 for goliah. must have crept in when I was ctrl+f'ing for 199 sometime in the past. Thanks

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Jon Clucas notifications@github.com wrote:

For project GOLIAH, the MHealthPeople_index column has "199, 110, 111" but the MHealthPeople spreadsheet has no 199. Is that supposed to be 99?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/80#issuecomment-380567267, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstQVxJ9Y2pJJaCYJt2FFCc2qjIKqLks5tnlhAgaJpZM4TO-HC .