-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revision of how we talk about elements of openMINDS #35
Comments
My initial reaction:
I think we should stick to a single term for this, I think "framework" is the more appropriate term.
I don't like "instantiated schema". Rather, I would say "metadata document (that is) compliant with an openMINDS schema" "node" rather than "document" could also be used, as long as it is established we're working in a graph-based framework.
I would reserve the word "module" only for schemas. For collections of instances I would use "library" and/or "vocabulary".
As noted above, I would not call this a module, just a tool.
This is ok, but I would avoid using "model" as much as possible given how overloaded the term is; e.g., only use it in a context like "the openMINDS schema collection (also refererred to as the openMINDS metadata model)".
yes, or just "openMINDS module". The fact we're using a GitHub repo is an implementation detail, more important is that the schemas in the module are in general thematically related (the possible exception being "core").
I'd need to see this in a broader context before having an opinion. |
combinatorics of tags
|
Here the updated terminology: GENERAL
SCHEMA-RELATED
The parts in brackets should be used whenever elements are presented out of context, but can be skipped when the context is clear (e.g., in the openMINDS article it would be ok to alternate between 'openMINDS metadata model' and the shorter version 'openMINDS model' as long as it was first introduced as 'openMINDS metadata model' and the context is still clear). Theoretically, there would also be openMINDS (schema) submodules since we do have thematic grouping within one GitHub repo (e.g., openMINDS extensions are organized by 'activity' and 'entity' (and 'device' in some cases)). But I don't think that we should make this even more complicated than it already is. INSTANCE-RELATED
TOOL-RELATED
TOOL-RELATED TAGS (for GitHub repositories)Can be used separately or in combination:
|
In the context of the openMINDS article, @lzehl and I struggled with using consistent terminologies to refer to parts of the openMINDS framework. We discussed and propose the following:
openMINDS infrastructure/framework = everything provided under the "openMINDS umbrella" (i.e., schema, instances, supportive tooling)
openMINDS schema = single metadata schema (i.e., the property-value pairs for one specific context that provides information about all possible/allowed ways to use it)
openMINDS instance = an instantiated schema (i.e., one possible way to use an openMINDS schema)
openMINDS instance/library module = GitHub repo for instances
openMIDNS tool module = GitHub repos for tooling
openMINDS model = all schemas across all GitHub repos
openMINDS schema module = all schemas within one GitHub repo
openMINDS submodels = subset of schemas within or across different GitHub repos that build a logical graph structure
'schema module' --> maintenance for larger submodels (i.e., one part of the whole openMINDS framework)
'(sub)model' --> logical graph structure
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: