I think this is a good idea. We should think about a clear property name, and a definition that clarifies that we're not attempting a full representation here for (e.g. sensor) measurements.

How about calling it "measurementTechnique" (applies to types: Dataset, DataDownload, perhaps DataCatalog for small homogenous collections, value: Text or (perhaps?) URL).

Draft:

measurementTechnique: "A description of a technique or technology used in a Dataset (or DataDownload, DataCatalog), corresponding to the method used for measuring the variable(s) which may be described with one or more variableMeasured properties. "

For example, if variable measured is: molecule concentration, measurementTechnique could be: "mass spectrometry" or "nmr spectroscopy" or "colorimetry" or "immunofluorescence". If the variableMeasured is "depression rating", the
measurementTechnique could be "Zung Scale" or "HAM-D" or "Beck Depression Inventory".

Open Issues

If we have several variableMeasured properties recorded for some given data object, we have the problem of being clear which technique goes with which variableMeasured. Since variableMeasured allows for a PropertyValue structure as its value, suggest that we allow measurementTechnique to optionally be attached at that level, so that the grouping detail is preserved.

Agreed on both, definition + reliance on propertyValue structure.

How does http://pending.webschemas.org/measurementTechnique look?

Talking with Natasha Noy, there's still a problem maybe. We discussed adding URL range to variableMeasured for well known codes to be cited by URL/URI identifiers.

1. We have measurementTechnique data
2. We have several variableMeasured to describe
3. each has a well known URL, since we then wouldn't use PropertyValue

In this case it may be that well known URLs for variableMeasured are best represented via sameAs on the PropertyValue, even if that is a bit verbose. Not clear if these 3 conditions will be common.

Jumping in late: a W3C/OGC working group has been developing a revised version of the 'Semantic Sensor Network' ontology [1]. A core vocabulary has been factored out, known as SOSA (Sensors, Observations, Samples and Actuators) which is intended to have a scope suitable for schema.org . In place of 'variableMeasured' SOSA has sosa:observedProperty, whose value is expected to be a sosa:ObservableProperty [2]

ObservableProperty is intended to name a property-type, like color, mass, temperature, which appears to match the description on https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/datasets .
However, in the formal definition http://pending.webschemas.org/variableMeasured the range is given as PropertyValue which appears to imply a value like 'red', or '1 kg' or '35degC' rather than PropertyType.

So, two items of feedback:

1. consider renaming variableMeasured to observedProperty
2. clarify range, so that it is clear that it is the semantic property type, not the number of classifier which is the property value

[1] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ - also includes alignments with OGC O&M, OBOE, prov-o
[2] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#features-of-interest-and-properties

@dr-shorthair PropertyValue holds both sides. The "name" and "value". Where the "name" can use the propertyId or description fields ... and the value uses the value field (along with other fields if needed like maxValue and valueReference. And we allow structure for both sides, or it can be just freeform text string. Your ObservablePropety is just the "name" side and not the "value" side, correct ? I.E. "the height of a tree" and not also its "12 feet".
http://pending.webschemas.org/PropertyValue

UPDATE: @dr-shorthair Actually, I think I just found the "value" side in SOSA, looks like Observations are made and values are stored in a Result http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#SOSAResult ??
Another question I have, if that is true, is that if your SOSAResult is equivalent to our http://pending.webschemas.org/value or closer to our http://pending.webschemas.org/QuantitativeValue ?

I prepared a fairly complete mapping from SSN/SOSA to schema.org a couple of years ago - see https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-sdo-mapping.ttl
The intention had been to introduce it here, but couldn't find the right route.

This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.

Hi @proccaserra , yes, I think that this is going in the right direction. But I believe half of the scope is missing. Research does not only quantifiable data but also qualitative data:

A lot of research (especially in fields such as psychology, medical studies and social studies) is qualitative. I believe there should be two levels:
measurementTechnique

1. quantitative
2. qualitative

with specifications of the type of data acquisition on a lower level as optional.

Hi @proccaserra, very appreciated. I implemented that already on massbank.eu. See view-source:https://massbank.eu/MassBank/RecordDisplay?id=UF420953&dsn=UFZ

Best,
Tobias

@tsufz here's another way to encode your MassBank Dataset that validates with rich results test. Uses 'about' to link the analysis to the molecular entity that was analyzed.

{
    "@context": "http://schema.org",
    "@type": "Dataset",
    "identifier": "UF420953",
    "url": "https://massbank.eu/MassBank/RecordDisplay?id=UF420953",
    "name": "MS2 mass spectrum of '2-Benzothiazolsulfonic acid",
    "headline": "2-Benzothiazolsulfonic acid; LC-ESI-ITFT; MS2; CE: 35; R=15000; [M-H]-",
    "description": "This MassBank record with Accession UF420953 contains the MS2 mass spectrum of '2-Benzothiazolsulfonic acid'.",
    "about": {
        "@type": [
            "Thing",
            "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_23367"
        ],
        "name": "2-Benzothiazolsulfonic acid",
        "alternateName": [
            "2-Benzothiazolsulfonic acid",
            "Benzothiazole-2-sulfonic acid",
            "1,3-Benzothiazole-2-sulfonic acid"
        ],
        "additionalProperty": [
            {
                "@type": "PropertyValue",
                "propertyID": "http://edamontology.org/format_1199",
                "name": "inchikey",
                "value": "ZCXGMSGCBDSEOY-UHFFFAOYSA-N"
            },
            {
                "@type": "PropertyValue",
                "propertyID": "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MS_1000866",
                "name": "molecularFormula",
                "value": "C7H5NO3S2"
            },
            {
                "@type": "PropertyValue",
                "propertyID": "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MI_2156",
                "name": "monoisotopicMolecularWeight",
                "value": "214.9711"
            },
            {
                "@type": "PropertyValue",
                "propertyID": "http://edamontology.org/format_1197",
                "name": "inChI",
                "value": "InChI=1S/C7H5NO3S2/c9-13(10,11)7-8-5-3-1-2-4-6(5)12-7/h1-4H,(H,9,10,11)"
            },
            {
                "@type": "PropertyValue",
                "propertyID": "http://edamontology.org/format_1196",
                "name": "smiles",
                "value": "O=S(=O)(O)c1nc2ccccc2s1"
            }
        ]
    },
    "measurementTechnique": "mass spectrometry",
    "datePublished": "2017-01-05",
    "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0",
    "citation": "null",
    "comment": [
        "CONFIDENCE standard compound",
        "INTERNAL_ID 4209"
    ]
}