Each class in the CRO should have an obo:definition.
We should take this as an opportunity to review the roles for inclusion or exclusion in the ontology, review names for clarity, and review the appropriateness of the current hierarchical arrangement of the ontology.
We might consider writing definitions with explicit references to their parent classes as a means to some of these ends. For example, a possible definition for the Technical Writing Role could be "A Software Development Role that involves producing documentation of software systems for a variety of audiences, including but not limited to end users and system administrators." This definition should force some reflection: is Technical Writing really a Software Development role? Might the parent class be called "Software Role" instead, as it is in the Credit Taxonomy? Is Software Development Role actually a subclass of a more general Software Role, or perhaps an alternate term for Software Engineering Role or Computer Programming Role? etc.
If we cannot devise a clear definition for a role that does not currently have one, we might take that as a sign that the role should be removed from the ontology.
Classes which currently lack definitions:
Documentation Role
Graphic Design Role
Marketing Role
Networking Facilitation Role (what was this, again?)
Website Development Role
Data Role
Data Aggregation Role
Statistical Data Analysis Role
Data Collection Role (how is this distinct from data aggregation?)
Metadata Application Role (application?)
Data Integration Role
Data Modeling Role
Data Quality Assurance Role
Data Visualization Role (may need to disambiguate this with Figure Development Role, which currently maps to the Credit Taxonomy's Visualization term. I think this one might map better.)
Educational Role (why not "Education")?
Educational Material Development Role
Educational Program Development Role
Teaching Role
Information Technology Systems Role
Hardware Systems Role
Software Systems Role
Database Administrator Role
System Administrator Role
Intellectual Property Advisor Role
Guideline Development Role
Protocol Creation Role
Standard Operating Procedure Development Role
Technique Development Role
Policy Development Role
Archivist Role
Conservator Role
Digital Preservation Role
Research Instrumentation Role
Device Development Role
Equipment Technician Role
Survey and Questionnaire Role
Classes with definitions that need improvement:
Contribution Role: needs to be generalized beyond the sciences, lest we exclude scholars that don't consider themselves scientists.
Each class in the CRO should have an obo:definition.
We should take this as an opportunity to review the roles for inclusion or exclusion in the ontology, review names for clarity, and review the appropriateness of the current hierarchical arrangement of the ontology.
We might consider writing definitions with explicit references to their parent classes as a means to some of these ends. For example, a possible definition for the Technical Writing Role could be "A Software Development Role that involves producing documentation of software systems for a variety of audiences, including but not limited to end users and system administrators." This definition should force some reflection: is Technical Writing really a Software Development role? Might the parent class be called "Software Role" instead, as it is in the Credit Taxonomy? Is Software Development Role actually a subclass of a more general Software Role, or perhaps an alternate term for Software Engineering Role or Computer Programming Role? etc.
If we cannot devise a clear definition for a role that does not currently have one, we might take that as a sign that the role should be removed from the ontology.
Classes which currently lack definitions:
Classes with definitions that need improvement: