Define relationship between ontologies supporting the Contribution Data Model (CDM)

[mbrush]

Our semantic data model needs ontological mappings for its types and attributes, and ontology terms to use as value sets.

• For a contribution role value set, we will use the CRO provides
• For artifact types we can assemble a recommended set of terms from diverse sources such as Wikidata and the COAR, and provide as a value set coded in several different formats for use by implementations. e.g. a plain text or tsv list, a spreadsheet, skos vocabulary, possibly even an owl file? But we will not pursue a formal OBO ontology for this space at this time.
• For core data model classes and properties needed for a complete mapping to types and attributes in the information model and json-LD schema, we will need a separate ontology/owl file. This 'core data model' ontology can import the CRO, but formally remain a separate ontology.

[diatomsRcool]

I think many disciplines have lists of artifact types we can reuse.

[kristiholmes]

hi - we talked about using the COAR resource types as a general object type schema - see what you think. https://github.com/data2health/architecting_attribution/issues/61

we have also cross-mapped the various object types from several research information systems (commercial and open source systems of various types - eg, CRIS, RNS, faculty information systems, evaluation frameworks, etc.). Let me know if it would be useful to discuss any of this, happy to do so.

[kristiholmes]

I think many disciplines have lists of artifact types we can reuse.

To @diatomsRcool 's comment, I completely agree and might suggest that we consider a high-level schema that can accommodate these more specific discipline-driven types.