Convert ASGS data to use simplified/aligned version of the ontology #13
Comments
Item 1.:
|
Item 2.:
|
Item 3.:
|
Item 4.:
|
Item 0.: (ensure that every individual feature is explicitly typed as a
|
Item 5.:
|
@dr-shorthair @jyucsiro |
@ashleysommer Simon made changes to the ASGS ontology that clarified the subProperty hierarchy for categories and codes. This allows backward compatibility of the current method mapping. The simplified/harmonized predicates uses less of the
I think having both |
Crossreferencing #13 (comment) I can see what you mean now. I think having 2 profiles - |
Another observation: In the raw ASGS data, the Meshlocks have a |
In general it is expected that all classifications and code-lists be published as web resources, so that I don't care what token is used for the local name, but the general principle is that the category is denoted by a URI. |
What is the " 'asgs' profile/view " ? |
@dr-shorthair When resolving the resource URI, if you don't explicitly choose a profile (using the "?_view=" query param) then you will get a default view, in our ASGS pyldapi deployment we have a default view called "asgs" in which the WFS feature is mapped to / aligned to the ASGS ontology. It looks like the "Original Form" snippet you have above. |
The goal of the 'simplification' was to make querying across datasets easier by replacing some properties that had been created in new namespaces with properties from standard namespaces. The SPARQL queries should be more portable across datasets. I think I managed to do this without any loss of information. It did involve some additional datatypes and controlled vocabularies, but the similarities between the primary dataset structures are more obvious. |
@dr-shorthair I'm not disputing that, it is a good change. |
@ashleysommer note that "the ASGS ontology" has been modified and streamlined. It has been refactored into multiple graphs (files), with some of these tagged
https://github.com/AGLDWG/asgs-ont/blob/master/asgs-path.ttl is not explicitly deprecated, but is maintained in a separate graph as its capabilities are not currently used in any data that we have access to. |
@dr-shorthair oh, I see what you mean now. So the old original 'asgs' view (with the asgs:mbCode2016 and asgs:statisticalAreaLevel1Of etc) is now not needed at all in our pyldapi deployment of the ASGS dataset? Are the ABS guys (ie, Laurent) across the ontology changes and approve of them? I was under the impression there were people in ABS using this pyldapi implementation (either our deployment, or their own instance) and relying on the original ontology predicates. |
I contacted Laurent to verify if it was OK to make changes and he concurred. |
@ashleysommer yep - I don't see a need for an on the abs-structures vs non-abs-structures, we don't need to tackle the non-abs-structures yet, but if it is simple to do, then it is a nice-to-have. the abs structures are a must have for our next release - these are:
|
(All encoded in https://github.com/AGLDWG/asgs-ont/blob/master/asgs.ttl ) |
https://github.com/CSIRO-enviro-informatics/loci.cat/wiki/Simplifying-the-initial-ontologies describes a simplification of the ASGS datasets to match a more unified Loc-I ontology pattern. The goal is to simplify/harmonize the SPARQL queries.
The transformations required are illustrated by-example as follows.
Original form:
Preferred form
asgs:category
→dcterms:type
whose object is a URI denoting a conceptasgs:mbCode2016
etc →dcterms:identifier
with a specific literal datatypeasgs:isStatisticalAreaLevel1Of
etc →geo:sfContains
and add matchinggeo:sfWithin
for the inverse casereg:register
→loci:isMemberOf
and inverseThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: