Create a Bioschemas 'type'

[nsjuty]

The following checklists will guide you through the process of advancing a recipe through its pipeline. You can click on "Submit new Issue" now, and read on later.

For issue meta-management, please conduct the following steps:

• [x ] change the title of this issue with the corresponding Use Case Number (at the top: click "Edit" -> change "UCnn.x TitleOfRecipe" correspondingly -> click "Save")
• [ x] assign this issue to yourself or whoever is responsible to advance this recipe through the next steps; usually this is the facilitator, i.e. Squad lead (at your right side: click "Assignees" -> "...")
• [ ] label this issue with the corresponding Use Case Number (at your right side: click "Labels" -> "UC..."
• [ ] add this issue to the corresponding Project, i.e. Kanban board (at your right side: click "Projects" -> "UC..."

Now you can delete the text above. If you needed to add a task to the list below, please think about amending the issue template: https://github.com/FAIRplus/the-fair-cookbook/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/meta-checklist.md Great! Now, to the actual tasks:

• [x ] identify author
• [ ] agree with editors on scope
• [ ] write abstract
• [ ] write feedback on abstract
• [ ] make corresponding changes to abstract
• [ ] write recipe
• [ ] identify reviewer
• [ ] conduct review
• [ ] incorporate reviewer's comments
• [ ] publish recipe

[nsjuty]

UC added

[AlasdairGray]

Is the intention of this issue to suggest that we should have a cookbook recipe for creating a new type in Bioschemas?

I don't think this would be a useful thing to have in the Cookbook. This is not something that should be happening on a regular basis.

The Cookbook should focus on the 80% of things that are going to give the most traction in FAIRifying your data.

[nsjuty]

Thats a very good point actually. We should though point out how to do that, with a link to the bioschemas website or equivalent?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:16 AM Alasdair Gray [email protected] wrote:

Is the intention of this issue to suggest that we should have a cookbook recipe for creating a new type in Bioschemas?

I don't think this would be a useful thing to have in the Cookbook. This is not something that should be happening on a regular basis.

The Cookbook should focus on the 80% of things that are going to give the most traction in FAIRifying your data.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FAIRplus/the-fair-cookbook/issues/139#issuecomment-781979070, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA4Q6TXEEEELYBG4H54DRTLS7Y3BVANCNFSM4SRCR3KA .

-- Nick Juty Senior Research Technical Manager The University of Manchester *Manchester * United Kingdom email: [email protected] [email protected]

[proccaserra]

adding a type for schema.org/ bioschema.org is like requesting a term from any other ontology.

so we could add a section to existing recipe about term requests.

[proccaserra]

@AlasdairGray @nsjuty unless there is a specific process for requested terms to schema.org, should we close this ticket?

[nsjuty]

I think you need to propose new types, which then go into 'pending' There is some information here: https://schema.org/docs/howwework.html

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:52 AM Philippe Rocca-Serra < @.***> wrote:

@AlasdairGray https://github.com/AlasdairGray @nsjuty https://github.com/nsjuty unless there is a specific process for requested terms to schema.org, should we close this ticket?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FAIRplus/the-fair-cookbook/issues/139#issuecomment-1205093949, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA4Q6TXZ3XDV53OMTQY7OI3VXOOHRANCNFSM4SRCR3KA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Nick Juty Senior Research Technical Manager The University of Manchester Manchester * United Kingdom email: @.* @.**>