should add 'tool tips'

[nicolevasilevsky]

I am pretty sure the tool tips are derived from the data properties in the ontology.

See this example from eagle-i:

and this is in ERO:

[marijane]

do we know which property it comes from?

that list of data properties has a ton of stuff that aren't part of my model...

[nicolevasilevsky]

I don't know, but I'll see if I can find any info about it in the documentation on open.med.

[nicolevasilevsky]

Does this help explain it? https://open.med.harvard.edu/wiki/display/eaglei/Core+Task+Workflows+and+Scenarios

[marijane]

Yes! thank you.

I only added Preferred Labels to entities that didn't already have the correct capitalization. Do we need to add them to everything? When I looked at ero-app.owl I thought I saw a lot of things that did not have preferred labels.

I did not add preferred definitions to anything, either.

[nicolevasilevsky]

From what I remember, we only added preferred labels if they didn't have the correct capitalization or if we wanted the display label to say something else - so just as you did. It is my understanding the software would use the preferred label, and if there wasn't one, it would use the proper label.

[marijane]

I just want to note that the software doesn't appear to be showing any tooltips, regardless of the annotation used.

[skcheng]

@marijane The annotation to use for the tooltips is: app:preferredDefinition

If the annotation doesn't exist, then the application will use whatever the definition is for the thing. You can see the definitions in the ontology browser by clicking on the properties: https://alaska.dev.eagle-i.net/model/#t=http://schema.org/CreativeWork&of=score

[marijane]

Interesting, everything shows up with NO DEFINITION despite lots of properties having an obo:definition annotation. I will add some preferred definitions to see if that fixes this.

[marijane]

we now have tool tips!

[nicolevasilevsky]

woohoo!

Now some comments about the defs: For contributor, the tool tip says secondary contributor for the resource. But it wouldn't necessarily be a secondary contributor would it? Maybe revise to a person or organization who contributed to the development of the resource.

Oh, I think i understand now - the primary person/org is the creator? If that is the case, then it would be nice to order that before contributor.

[marijane]

I agree, creator should come before contributor, and I pushed a change late Friday that does this, but I haven't made it part of a release yet.