You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are multiples metadata properties in MOD (since 1.4) that are not directly available in the AgroPortal metadata model because they were already available and implemented "differently" in the original BioPortal metadata model.
(in fact these properties influenced MOD and are often the reason why there are in MOD now)
With the first iteration of work on metadata in 2017, we decided not to include them as a repetition in the Submission object.
Now, in order to anticipate the capacity to return metadata following several "profiles" we coud consider adding them.
Mostly this concerns the properties for which the range is another complex object in the model. Listed hereafter:
Classes partition@en ; partition des classes@fr [bpm:classes]
Properties partition@en ; partition des propriétés@fr [bpm:properties]
Has version @en ; a pour version@fr [bpm:submissions]
Changes@en ; changements@fr [bpm:diffFilePath]
We need to see if we can add "equivalences" for them in the model (as we do for the other added properties) AND if it will be easy to "serialize" the object in our model into the form expected by the object in the range in the property in profile used to return the metadata.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There are multiples metadata properties in MOD (since 1.4) that are not directly available in the AgroPortal metadata model because they were already available and implemented "differently" in the original BioPortal metadata model.
(in fact these properties influenced MOD and are often the reason why there are in MOD now)
With the first iteration of work on metadata in 2017, we decided not to include them as a repetition in the Submission object.
Now, in order to anticipate the capacity to return metadata following several "profiles" we coud consider adding them.
Mostly this concerns the properties for which the range is another complex object in the model. Listed hereafter:
We need to see if we can add "equivalences" for them in the model (as we do for the other added properties) AND if it will be easy to "serialize" the object in our model into the form expected by the object in the range in the property in profile used to return the metadata.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: