Christoph, All,

It turns out there exists PSO, the Publishing Status Ontology :

http://speroni.web.cs.unibo.it/cgi-bin/lode/req.py?req=http:/purl.org/spar/pso


IRI: http://purl.org/spar/pso/Status

A state or condition that a document may have.

accepted for publication, archived, catalogued, copy-edited, corrected,
draft, embargoed, enhanced, final draft, in press, initial draft,
intermediate draft, open access, peer reviewed, proof, published, rejected
for publication, republished, retracted from publication, reviewed, revised,
submitted, under reviewed, unpublished, version of record, withdrawn from
submission


<http://speroni.web.cs.unibo.it/cgi-bin/lode/req.py?req=http:/purl.org/spar/pso>Best
regards,
Nina

On 2 April 2011 09:13, Nina Jeliazkova <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:

> Christoph, All,
>
>
> On 31 March 2011 14:12, Nina Jeliazkova <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 31 March 2011 13:48, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > > Thanks, this works as advertised! But how can I decide, which
>>> datasets
>>> > > are ready for production use (e.g. to select the four relevant
>>> datasets
>>> > >
>>> > >    dc:title "Benchmark Data Set for in Silico Prediction of Ames
>>> > > Mutagenicity" ;
>>> > >    dc:title "Bursi mutagenicity dataset.sdf" ;
>>> > >    dc:title "CPDBAS: Carcinogenic Potency Database Summary Tables -
>>> All
>>> > > Species" ;
>>> > >    dc:title "ISSCAN: Istituto Superiore di Sanita, CHEMICAL
>>> CARCINOGENS:
>>> > > STRUCTURES AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA" ;
>>> > >
>>> > > from 247 mutagenicity datasets), if I do not know titles in advance?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > There is currently no any metadata to handle it,  let's agree on some
>>> RDF
>>> > property  to denote a "production use" and we'll include it it into
>>> > /dataset/id/metadata ( read and update) , as recently was done for
>>> licenses.
>>>
>>> That would be *very* useful, also for models (or even algorithms - to
>>> distinguish between algorithms in development and stable/mature
>>> algorithms).
>>
>>
>> Agree.  Could be applicable even for chemical structures.
>>
>>
>>> Do you know existing properties that can be used or do we
>>> need to invent one?
>>>
>>
>>
> I've been told to look into :
>
> 1) Vocabulary Status Ontology
>
> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns
>
> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/note
>
> vs:term_status
>     a    r:Property;
>     default87:comment
>
>         "the status of a vocabulary term, expressed as a short symbolic string; known values include 'unstable','testing', 'stable' and 'archaic'";
>     default87:label
>        "term status";
>
>     vs:term_status
>        "unstable".
>
>
> 2) DCMI terms ontology
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
>
> 3)  DOAP (for software - algorithms in our case)
> http://trac.usefulinc.com/doap
>
>
> So far the first option looks like the simplest and applicable in all cases
> we need.  DCMI terms ontology has lot of properties, but not sure which are
> applicable. DOAP description of the software related resources would be nice
> to have, may need to be adapted to datasets.
>
> For a quick solution, I would suggest vs:term_status from 1) . Do you think
> the suggested status values are sufficient  ('unstable','testing', 'stable'
> and 'archaic') or we need to extend the list?  The values themselves  are
> not formally defined in the ontology, only listed in a free-text comment.
>
> Best regards,
> Nina
>
>
>
>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>
>>
>