Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bioschemas for webpages #72

Open
JolandaS opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 11 comments
Open

Bioschemas for webpages #72

JolandaS opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@JolandaS
Copy link
Collaborator

Bioschemas implementation to get some basic metadata exposed in web pages for EBiSC

@JolandaS JolandaS added this to the F2F Barcelona milestone Feb 19, 2020
@AlasdairGray
Copy link
Collaborator

@JolandaS please let @Petrosss and myself know what we can do to help this happen. Do we have an idea of what kinds of pages (gene, protein, drugs) will be marked up?

@JolandaS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for the offer @AlasdairGray. We need to get more details on this ourselves from the data owners. As soon as we have those I will add them here.

@JolandaS JolandaS self-assigned this Mar 11, 2020
@AlasdairGray
Copy link
Collaborator

@Petrosss and myself should both be at the virtual face-to-face so we can help with the hacking then

@Chris-Evelo
Copy link

Could we think of a use case for this? What would look up this Bioschemas annotation? One idea I can think of is that we could do this for all public IMI dataset descriptions? If so should we create a page that harvests that and tabulates the data descriptions and links. A recipe for the addition of Bioschemas would annotation probably be useful outside the project too. But I guess that is already available, although maybe in another format?

@AlasdairGray
Copy link
Collaborator

Schema markup of dataset descriptions are already indexed by search engines (Microsoft Bing and Google) which then enable better search, and also dedicated search portals like Google's Dataset Search.

The idea behind including more specific markup on the types themselves is that it also becomes available to the search engines, and also to feed into research knowledge graphs.

@proccaserra
Copy link
Collaborator

@AlasdairGray +1 to that. There is a dedicated section in the Table of Content for the Cookbook so we can create an issue on the FAIRcookbook tracker an assign you to make a generic case.

@JolandaS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ask EBiSC on their progress of merging their catalogs.
Bioschemas recipe, discuss during squad lead call.

@Chris-Evelo
Copy link

Of course, it is wonderful if search engines use it. But I still think it would add an additional benefit if we used the Bioschemas annotation also for cataloging ourselves. Apart from another carrot to actually add the information it will also allow us to evaluate Bioschemas annotations ourselves quicker.

@JolandaS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Chris-Evelo Could you set up a short recipe in which the outline is given of how you could use Bioschemas for cataloging? And include links to the appropriate Bioschema pages? Just so we have start of a recipe on this subject.

@JolandaS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The webpages meant by EBiSC were indeed the EBiSC catalogue and the hPSCreg webpage. They are in the process of merging these together. I will ask on the current status of this.

@JolandaS JolandaS removed this from the Virtual meeting End of April 2020 milestone May 13, 2020
@nsjuty
Copy link
Collaborator

nsjuty commented Jun 3, 2020

The recipe is written and in the cookbook, but it needs 'framing' in the recipe directly. For instance what 'capability' is needed to do this, such as schema.org and JSON-LD, as well as context. This can be captured in a 'higher level' recipe(s) which will be worked on at some point, and will direct to different 'types', for which this will be one instance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants