IBP Rice Trait Ontology | Agrisemantics Map of Data Standards

PLEASE HELP US BY COMPLETING A QUICK SURVEY ON THE USE OF THIS MAP: click here

CGIAR rice trait ontology version 3. Compared with IRRI SES and trait ontology. Based from SES, Rice Descriptor and IRIS DB.

Form

Core information

URL(s):

http://www.cropontology.org/

Publisher(s) / Maintainer(s):

CGIAR, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)

Domain(s):

Plant Science and Plant Products

Type of standard:

Ontology

Describes / models / annotates:

Phenotype and Trait, Plants / germplasm, Research and agronomic data

Additional information

Acronym:

CO_320

Other contributor(s):

Mauleon Ramil

Nikki Frances Borja

Julie Mae Pasuquin

William Eusebio

Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton

Cécile Grenier

Contact email:

e.arnaud@cgiar.org

License(s):

Creative Commons Attribution

Technical information

Format of the data standard:

CSV, OWL/XML, RDF/XML

Download / dump:

http://data.agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/CO_320/submissions/5/download?apikey=...

Link to machine-readable description:

http://www.cropontology.org/ontology/CO_320/Rice/owl

Relations

Aligned / mapped to (link to vocabulary in the map):

Groundnut Ontology, Chickpea Ontology, IBP Wheat Trait Ontology, Lentil Ontology, Pigeon Pea Ontology, Plant Trait Ontology, Soybean Ontology, Sweet Potato Ontology

RDF vocabulary

RDF "language":

OWL

Number of classes:

2459

Number of properties:

VEST / AgroPortal integration

Original source:

AgroPortal

Agroportal URI:

http://data.agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/CO_320

Agroportal Web page:

http://agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/CO_320

Assessment

An overview of criteria used for the assessment can be found here.

Total score:

2.14

assessment tabs

Fitness / adoption

Complete:

Fairly complete but needs complementary vocabularies

Authoritative:

Not clear - N/A

Largely compatible:

Yes

Known:

Yes, moderately

Used in software:

Yes, in a few tools

Used in datasets:

Not clear - N/A

Discoverable:

Yes

Regulatory:

Not clear - N/A

Endorsed:

Yes, moderately

Long-term, sustainable:

Not clear - N/A

Participatory, collaborative:

Not clear - N/A

Maintained:

Not clear - N/A

Scores

Avg fitness:

2.33

Avg adoption:

1.67

Usability / openness

Available on the web:

Yes

Versatile:

Yes, 2-3 similar formats

Served by APIs:

Yes, to get web- or user- friendly results

Yes, to lookup terms / concepts using several parameters

Yes, to automatically annotate text or data

Yes, to perform cross-walks between vocabularies

Manageable:

Yes, on specialized vocabulary management platform

Documented:

Not clear - N/A

Supported:

Not clear - N/A

Testable:

Not clear - N/A

Machine-readable:

Yes

Meaningful:

Yes

Annotated:

Not clear - N/A

Referenceable:

Yes

Linked:

Yes

Clearly licensed:

Not clear - N/A

Openly licensed:

Not clear - N/A

Scores

Avg usability:

2.43

Avg openness:

2.14

Notes on assessment:

First technical assessment (usability / openness) made by: FAO.

URI: https://vest.agrisemantics.org/node/17625

RDF

If you're logged in, you can EDIT this record if you registered it or claimed it or you can CLAIM it if you want permission to edit it.