search

tdwg / gbwg

Genomic Biodiversity Interest Group
Apache License 2.0
18 stars 2 forks source link

DwC Mapping - MIXS:0000016 samp_mat_process #21

Closed tucotuco closed 3 years ago

tucotuco commented 3 years ago
Field Value
subject_id http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/samplingProtocol
subject_definition The name of, reference to, or description of the method or protocol used during an Event.
subject_usage_notes
subject_examples UV light trap, mist net, bottom trawl, ad hoc observation, point count, Penguins from space: faecal stains reveal the location of emperor penguin colonies, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00467.x, Takats et al. 2001. Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring in North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. 32 pp., http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/Owl.pdf
predicate_id skos:broadMatch
object_id MIXS:0000016
object_label samp_mat_process
object definition Any processing applied to the sample during or after retrieving the sample from environment. This field accepts OBI, for a browser of OBI (v 2018-02-12) terms please see http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/OBI
object source https://github.com/GenomicsStandardsConsortium/mixs-legacy/blob/master/mixs5/mixs_v5.xlsx
comment dwc:samplingProtocol covers both of the concepts samp_collect_device and samp_collect_process.
ymgan commented 3 years ago

Related MIxS v6 issue: https://github.com/GenomicsStandardsConsortium/mixs/issues/21

raissameyer commented 3 years ago

Suggested syntax predicate for the mapping above https://github.com/tdwg/gbwg/issues/21#issue-805171660

Field Value
subject_id http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/samplingProtocol
subject_value_syntax - expected_value - unit
syntax_predicate_id skos:relatedMatch
object_id MIXS:0000016
object_value_syntax - expected_value - unit {text} {termLabel} {[termID]} - text or OBI
syntax_comment DwC expects the name of, reference to, or description (which could also include a URI, IRI, etc.), while MIxS expects terms from an ontology where appropriate, for which the input would not only be a word but a termLabel[termID] combination
pbuttigieg commented 3 years ago

The semantic match may actually be DwC narrowMatch MIxS, as the MIxS expectation is more restrictive.

pbuttigieg commented 3 years ago

The syntactic match is a bit funny here and in a few other cases: they're "related" in a broad sense, but what we're actually saying is that they're not really related. Not sure what the right way to handle that is.