| ... | ... | @@ -47,6 +47,11 @@ However for adoption of your application- or domain-level metadata and semantics |
|
|
|
### Metadata schemas
|
|
|
|
Application level metadata is often collected and validated with metadata schemas. Different formats may be used for this, such as XML or JSON-Schema. We here highlight the latter as a very commonly used way of defining schemas, but envision similar implementations also in other formats or serialisation. In JSON schema fields like "external reference" that could carry an emg.owl class label and "identifier" carrying the related class IRIs is encouraged. For linked data schmemas such as YARRRML or JSON-Schema emg.owl base URI should be intergrated as the appropriate context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pbryan-zyp-json-ref-00
|
|
|
|
https://rml.io/yarrrml/
|
|
|
|
https://json-schema.org/
|
|
|
|
https://json-ld.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Semantic file formats
|
|
|
|
In semantic file formats, such as HDF5 based containers or NeXus we propose to introduce cross references as doc-strings or separate fields associated with key that carry emg.owl class IRIs. Stronger integration might be achieved through semantic import and alignment of related ontologies.
|
|
|
|
|
| ... | ... | |
| ... | ... | |
