On 6/12/07, Tommy Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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'.
I was simply pointing out that it hadn't been said prior to that. > > 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. See below. > > > 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. This is the special attention that doesn't make sense. It has no data model equivalent within the metadata specification. > > 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. It does describe something new. It's "a special kind of keyword" is about all I can see at the moment with no specification of how that is managed. Other software will have no reference vocabulary from which to offer these to authors. I was offering a way to help build such a reference vocabulary. > > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
