Skip to content
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

Replace Library classes and update with the standarized oens in materialls-processing-plugin #19

Open
Pepe-Marquez opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@Pepe-Marquez
Copy link
Collaborator

Pepe-Marquez commented Mar 27, 2024

We need to look to standardize the combinatorial related classes with the ones established in the materials-processing plugin.

For example SampleLibrary should become CombinatorialLibrary. Check with @RoteKekse that we do not break anything.

Micha, can you give Fabian rights to this repo? Fabian, create a branch and put a PR that can be reviewed.

@RoteKekse
Copy link
Collaborator

shouldnt we do this by ontology links?

@RoteKekse
Copy link
Collaborator

you can also do a fork and a pull requst from the fork :)

@Pepe-Marquez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

shouldnt we do this by ontology links?

I think that in this case, we should reuse the base sections specifically designed for this, which can also have links to ontology concepts. But these base sections are also used in other combinatorial contexts, like the implementation of the HTEM database, and will be part of other planned lab integrations which will enhance interoperability within the NOMAD community. We also plan to implement in the future dashboards for exploring composition properties relation and used similar NOMAD data models will for sure help.

@RoteKekse
Copy link
Collaborator

not sure, i had a discussion about this with andrea the other week but maybe it works out in this case if the classes are anyhow the same. i always feel like agreeing on central schemas is too much effort and with ontology links we can recover. ideally nomad works on IRIs and not on schemas. everyone wants different schemas. but yeah maybe in this case it works out

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants