transmute-industries/traceability-vocab

A vocabulary for asserting Verifiable Credentials related to supply-chain traceability

This is now a Work Item at the W3C Credentials Community Group

traceability-vocab's Issues

Migrate to CCG

w3c-ccg/community#156 (comment)

Mechanical Properties

need ontologies for things like "hardness", "Charpi impact" , etc....

 {
            "title": "Net Weight (Kg)",
            "field": "weight"
          },
          {
            "title": "Yield to Tensile Ratio",
            "field": "yieldToTensileRatio"
          },
          {
            "title": "Yield Strength (PSI)",
            "field": "yieldStrength"
          },
          {
            "title": "Tensile Strength (PSI)",
            "field": "tensileStrength"
          },
          {
            "title": "Elongation (%)",
            "field": "elongation"
          },
          {
            "title": "CHARPY IMPACT Temp (C)",
            "field": "charpyImpactTempDegreesC"
          },
          {
            "title": "CHARPY IMPACT Energy (J)",
            "field": "charpyImpactEnergyJoules"
          }

So far, this is the best: https://github.com/Duke-MatSci/nanomine

Don't declare periodic table of elements in vocabulary

We should not declare periodic table elements in a traceability vocabulary. DARPA did this work in 2003:

http://explore.dublincore.net/learning_resource/periodic-table-in-owl/

There is also the Ontology of Chemical Elements, which is current and put together by biometical ontologists:

https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/OCE/?p=summary

At the very least, we really should involve chemists, physicists, etc. to determine how this work should be done... but not to the degree that this turns into a multi-year effort. Taking the two ontologies above and doing a simpler one that merges the common terms expressed in each might work as well -- but could be a significant undertaking on its own.

Add type and id to $comment

@type should preferably point to external ontology, like GS1, schema.org, chebi, etc...
@id should preferably point to terms we have pulled from external ontologies and given their own term definitions for traceability.

Composition might need to be modeled differently

I'd model the percent composition differently... as a separate node:

  "chemicalComposition": [{
    "id": "Tc"
    "percentage": "84.61"
  }, {
    "id": "Mc"
    "percentage": "46.95"
  },{
    "id": "Og"
    "percentage": "83.5"
  }]

As a side note, it's confusing that those percentages don't add up to 100 in the example, but I'm assuming that's just the autogenerated stuff being wonky?