Closed larrybabb closed 6 years ago
That seems right to me. A lot of our original definitions were almost placeholders, and the ones worked out thorough the SEPIO collaboration are much more consistent and robust.
Yes, this is correct.
As I am going through to incorporate the SEPIO and other definitions. I have hit quite a few (mostly attributes) that have no definition). Not sure if we should be doing this or if we should do it together with Matt B. I will put the text DEFINITION PENDING.
@bpow @cbizon I would like you guys to verify that we truly want to use these definitions because there are a number of attributes that are associated to a single IRI and therefore they all have a very ambiguous definition.
For example, the following attributes all share the IRI SEPIO:0000197 (asserted_conclusion) which has the definition
A relation that holds between an assertion (e.g. a variant interpretation or criterion assessment) and a term that summarizes its asserted conclusion.
These will all have that same definition in our documentation...
Thanks for making this clear. After viewing this list, I no longer thing we should document with the sepio definitions for these attributes.
Yeah, it sounds like we should refer to the sepio defs but have our own that are more domain specific.
@cbizon will fill out the 'description' column of the 'Type' table
The description column is filled out, but now I need to make all the pages for DomainEntities
I think that this is complete.
@cbizon @bpow @tnavatar
I recall saying that we would use all the definitions that we worked on with MB (SEPIO) in place of our original definitions.
I will go through and update our Type/Attribute cells with the SEPIO defs but I'd like validation from @cbizon or @bpow. To be clear, I will only overwrite our original defs if there is a solid definition available in the SEPIO data.