Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


  1. Updates:
    1. China
    2. Mike tries to get control about the entry in Bioportal:
    3. is not an ontology, more use in VIVO is appreciated.
  2. Regarding use of XMLLiteral.  vivo.owl currently has 220 datatype properties.  They have ranges tabulated below:


    Here's the query I ran (using robot on vivo.owl in the released version)

    Code Block
    PREFIX owl: <>
    PREFIX rdfs: <>
    SELECT (count(DISTINCT ?s) AS ?nrange) ?r
    WHERE {
      ?s a owl:DatatypeProperty . 
      OPTIONAL { ?s rdfs:label ?l }
      OPTIONAL { ?s rdfs:range ?r }
    GROUP BY ?r
    ORDER BY DESC(?nrange)

  3. Following discussion the group recommends the use of rdf:HTML as range on datatype properties that require HTML editing.  All other datatype property ranges (including no ranges) are edited using a plain text edit editor. It appears that 4 datatype properties (bibo:abstract, vivo:overview, vivo:teachingOverview, vivo:researchOverview) should have range specified as rdf:HTML.  Note:  other fields may require rdf:HTML type, and other edge cases may be discovered.  The group discussed the impact of language tags, the need to add HTML to some labels, and other potential edge cases.  The group recommends testing in a branch to discover unintended consequences and edge cases.  Existing field may contain HTML that under this proposal would no longer be able to contain HTML.  Such fields may need to be stripped of HTML by site data managers.
  4. Priorities

See Marijane's meeting notes at

In Progress or Review Ontology Issues