search

openrif / vivo-isf-ontology

The "VIVO-ISF Ontology" is an OWL2 representation of the VIVO-ISF Data Standard
16 stars 9 forks source link

vivo:dateFiled (domain: biboPatent) #711

Open mconlon17 opened 6 years ago

mconlon17 commented 6 years ago

Opened by @mjaved495

The domain of the property vivo:dateFiled is defined as bibo:Patent.

My understanding on this property is that it is equivalent to "date submitted". I think the domain of such a generalized property should be either kept "open" (i.e., without a domain) or a very higher-level class should be defined as its domain e.g. (obo:IAO_0000030 - Information Content Entity).

https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/VIVO-1123

hauschke commented 6 years ago

Filing is a term, that has a very precise meaning regarding to patents. I'm not sure if we should open that.

I'm not sure about the impact. I guess it would be medium, I can't see much harm, but that has to be carefully evaluated.

mconlon17 commented 6 years ago

We might consider having a series of subtypes for dateTimeValue so that we can keep these various definitions and usages separate. Having dateFiled which applies only to patents would allow us to clarify what the date on a patent means. We have similar issues elsewhere - perhaps the most obvious is for a publication. We associate a date with a publication. We presume that date is the date of publication. But we do not call it that, and we do not define it that way. We had a similar issue with organizations. A date of interest is "date established" but there may be other dates that have other definitions. Assigning dateTimeValue is non-informative.

mconlon17 commented 6 years ago

Impact Low

Additional date type has no impact on current data, software or queries. Future queries can differentiate between the date filed and other dates of interest on a patent.

See #704 regarding the general consideration of subtypes of dateTimeValue