On 6/11/07, Tommy Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt wrote: > > I have concluded that they are now talking about the web site and not > > keywords in general. > > > > My assumption was that the category field selections are not persisted > > in the model metadata at all. > > > > Actually they are. Keywords are defined in the CellML metadata > specifications and are already being used in various files. Feel free to > check the CellML files of the old repository and scroll down the to keyword > section. An example follows.
You are talking about keywords, I was talking about these new things Peter brought up called Categories. > > >From http://www.cellml.org/examples/models/beeler_reuter_model_1977.html: > > <!-- Keyword(s) --> > <bqs:reference rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <dc:subject rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <bqs:subject_type>keyword</bqs:subject_type> > <rdf:value> > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>ventricular myocyte</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>electrophysiological</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > </rdf:value> > </dc:subject> > </bqs:reference> > > I do understand it may be different from the full CellML metadata > specification as found in > http://www.cellml.org/specifications/metadata/cellml_metadata_1.0#sec_bqs, > but all other models pretty much follow this RDF format and so I wound up > having to follow the above format to pick up the keyword metadata. It's different, but says the same thing, even though the graph comes out different. Personally I think we should probably dump bqs; the rdf schema we advertise is non-standard and broken. Dublin core is not the easiest thing to follow, but at least it is standard and used in the world, so we should at least keep that. > > > I would have liked some indication that the 'categories' used also end > > up in the model keywords attributed to the model in addition to the > > keywords supplied by the author when creating or uploading the model. > > > > That is already the case, the 'categories' *are* keywords that are chosen by > Peter as a selectable choice in the filtering drop box for the repository > listing. You need to make sure the keywords then are ordered collections so that you can create some rule for your 'category' interpretation. I don't like this special attention that certain keywords gets. > > > I would like there to be as many keywords allowed as the > > author/uploader wants (perhaps just a lines field will do for now for > > this). Constraining them to a single extra keyword in addition to a > > selected category makes no sense to me. > > > > In the Edit Keyword interface, any keyword of the model that matches one of > the 'blessed' keywords will be highlighted in the category list. All other > keywords will be in the lines field editor. Feel free to log into the site > (I assume you have an account) and try out the editing interface. I do agree > it is currently slightly clunky, but James has no complaints with it and he > has already added/verified keyword for half the curated models (I think) of > the repository. > > Again, the category field is a *subset* of keywords to limit the number of > choices in the filtering menu and not a distinct entity. > > Hope this clear things up. > > Tommy. > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
