Just had a discussion with Peter, Randall and James about this. The keywords are in the metadata for the models, and there is no limit to what can go in there. The concern about that is the list could get too big (for minor categories), or variations in the name (electrophysiology vs electrophysiological), or just spelling in general. What was decided is to have the same category list, but it would act as a "blessed" list of keywords that will serve as a guide to what should be added to the model, and as a broad category filter for the main repository listing. Users would still be able to add or search by other keywords (from the advance search interface) if they wish.
Tommy. Matt wrote: > On 6/6/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> James Lawson wrote: >>> David Nickerson wrote: >>>> Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added >>>> to the model metadata and that the division into categories on the main >>>> repository page will be assembled from queries on each of these >>>> predefined key words? >>> Well potentially, there could be many many different keywords, so Peter >>> suggested that we might not necessarily want to base the categories on >>> just the keywords. At the moment, Tommy's sorting function is based on >>> keywords but he suggested that we could have both a keyword and a more >>> general category selection system. >> not sure I like the idea of a separate category, seems to me adding some >> special piece of metadata to models just to make a repository dump look >> pretty isn't the way to go. It would be nicer to make use of the >> keywords (which are genuinely useful metadata to more than just the >> model repository), possibly with the addition of a guided part of the >> metadata editing workflow which prompts the user to choose at least one >> of the predefined "category" keywords and a filter smart enough to put >> models without one of the special keywords into an "other" category. >> This way the main repository page layout could be easily changed to add >> or remove keywords that get pulled out as categories without having to >> change the models. >> >> It would also be nice if we can analyse all the repository searching to >> keep track of the most popular keywords and adjust the categories on the >> main page accordingly :-) > > > Well, I'm hoping to steal all the keywords and lay them out in the > physiome ontology and then put them back in as bioentities (or math > related) metadata pointing into this. So the long term relationship > between keywords and this "ontology" metadata is where my thinking > lies. I like the idea of reflecting this information into keywords, > e.g. for 'cardiovascular' the bioentity would be some big long uri > pointing into the instance of the term 'cardiovascular' in the > ontology, so it would be nice if the keywords were at least > dynamically generated from the labels of these ontological term > instances. > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> cellml-discussion mailing list >> cellml-discussion@cellml.org >> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion >> > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
