RFC 4: review from David Horsfall/ Hannifa lab#435
Conversation
Automated Review URLs |
|
|
||
| ### **Controlled Vocabulary Expansion** | ||
|
|
||
| The current vocabulary has a focus on biped/quadruped canonical directions. To support clinical and other research contexts (e.g., dermatology, cardiology, and oncology), we recommend adding terms that describe layered and polarized tissues to controlled vocabulary: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current RFC gives the orientation a "type"; for now, the RFC only defines "type":"anatomical". The examples given below are good candidates for additional types with a separate namespace.
In my opinion, the namespacing means that this feedback should not block the acceptance of the RFC as-is; if reasonably complete vocabularies can be provided for other orientation types then they could be added to RFC-4, or if it takes longer/ a more in-depth survey to gather those vocabularies, they can be added in another RFC or via some (yet-to-be-proposed) extension mechanism.
|
FAO @thewtex |
thewtex
left a comment
thewtex
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you! This is an excellent review.
I'll improve the text and enumerated values in the future.
|
Also pinging author @davehorsfall . |
3 participants
This review was submitted externally; I am not the author but will manage its passage through github.