Matt wrote: > 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. >
I will say it again. Categories are not 'new things'. It is something specific to the CellML Repository I was told to implement. The options in the category are keywords themselves. Items there are not 'new things'. They are just keywords hand-picked by Peter to show up in the drop box that happens to be labeled as categories. Nothing more. Before you ask further, I only did what I was told. > >> >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. > I very much agree, it was not easy working with and around it, especially given the pile of cruft that is already in place that I have to deal with... > 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. > If someone come up with a proper metadata specification based only on industry standard with everyone in the community agreeing with use it I would be happy as it should make my life easier when dealing with CellML metadata. Also, I don't want to be dealing with five different graphs that says the same thing. I have enough headaches dealing with constructing multiple versa queries to pull relevant data as it is. >>> 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. > Not really. I don't care what they are ordered. If it exists it gets "highlighted" as per demand. > I don't like this special attention that certain keywords gets. > They get no further treatment aside from the "special attention" which is to limit the listing of keywords. Peter does not want that list to be filled with over 100 keywords. A condensed listing was desired and I implemented with keywords as those keywords used must exactly describe what the models we have in the repository (and the old repository) are about. Feel free to check these links out. http://www.cellml.org/examples/repository/index.html - Under Table of Contents - Basically the same list of "categories". http://www.cellml.org/models/pmr_search - Feel free to see/search by all keywords with the 'Keywords' selection box. It works exactly the same as the category filter found on top of the main listing except the short list found on the main listing is a predefined list of keywords. Again, having the "special category listing" that only includes the few chosen keywords is intended to be an usability aid for the filtering of the major types of models we deal with, which happens to be described via the keyword metadata. If you still think category describes something new (at least in the way it is implemented by the CellML repository), I don't know what else to convince you that it isn't. >>> 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 _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
