dwinston
commented
3 years ago A question: how granular do we want to get in terms of drilling down into detailed aspects of each term? I.e. an x-ray diffraction pattern is associated with an instrument and its settings (x-ray wavelength, diffraction geometry, resolution, collection statistics, etc)
I recommend that we match the granularity of the dataset. If, for example, there is a data field/column for diffraction geometry, we want to define that term. However, if that aspect is not currently an explicit facet of the dataset, i.e. it is simply given in prose in the publication, then I think we can leave it out on first pass.
If I am collecting a new dataset, how can I organize the process of linking all of my metadata to existing defined terms, identifying missing terms and links, and generating and integrating those?
This is well-put. I think this is the central question our working group is to answer. :)
A question: how granular do we want to get in terms of drilling down into detailed aspects of each term? I.e. an x-ray diffraction pattern is associated with an instrument and its settings (x-ray wavelength, diffraction geometry, resolution, collection statistics, etc)
If I am collecting a new dataset, how can I organize the process of linking all of my metadata to existing defined terms, identifying missing terms and links, and generating and integrating those?
Material properties
[ ] crystal structure
[ ] Composition
[ ] optical transmittance and reflectance
[ ] electrical resistance / conductivity
Sample properties
[ ] Film thickness
[ ] sample coordinates
Thin film synthesis
[ ] general thin film synthesis terms
[ ] radiofrequency sputtering
[ ] pulsed laser deposition