New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ISSUE-125 Use wikidata to provide skos:definition to owl:Class'es #202
Conversation
Seeing as there is 2186... and that the implementing code does NOT touch any Class which already has an skos:definition annotation statement. Would anyone have an issue if I edited the implementing code to run against dbpedia so see if we can get more results? This would be trivial to implement. I could create a new PR with the results. |
ooh, I forgot there were some existing skos:definitions. So how about this @lewismc? (#3 is the core of what I'm getting at, the other two may be "better is the enemy of good enough" items. But # 1 below at least is pretty important if we are going for # 3 below))
Eventually we could even encourage (via a submission pattern, so ROBOT could undoubtedly help with this if they want to add directly; or we could continue to pull in by import as you are doing) the continued addition by various groups of reasonably consistent definitions from their groups, for a "compare and contrast" experience. |
Hi @graybeal this is great... makes perfect sense to me. I'm unsure how to do # 2 though haha. . # 3 can be done easily on my side if we can somehow determine how to define all existing skos:definition's are preferred over the ones we automatically fetched from external sources. Makes perfect sense John, just a few more pieces of clarification please. Any thoughts? Thank you |
@graybeal I wonder if we would use a skos:historyNote or skos:changeNote to specify commentary on the preferred annotation definition? At the same time however, in
|
I think if all 38 native definitions can have a common annotation—it could be anything really, a uniform skos:historyNote would be great—we can decide later if we need to favor that definition in any other way. (I don't recall having a warm fuzzy that these were superior definitions in any particular or obvious way, when I looked long ago.) example:
(And try to provide the same annotations as are provided for the other non-native annotations, to establish the standard pattern for all future definitions.) |
@graybeal I think taking this proposal to the Semantic Harmonization community would be best. I am +1 on this. |
Whether we use one and/or other annotations would call for looking at the annotation description and seeing if the description of each annotation (e.g. skos:historyNote vs. changeNote) is what we are intending to express. Provided there is a description of the skos, rdfs, prov, or whatever annotation). And we can create annotations or sub-annotations for what we are intending to express. |
@rrovetto YES |
I can add |
Isn't it the SWEET team? I thought the groups were distinct: SWEET team, and Semantic Harmonization team. |
@rrovetto your quite right! Let me create a pull request and we can evaluate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good enough to move forward, and very good to finally have some definitions.
This PR replaces both #201 and #200
dcterms:source
in favor ofprov:wasDerivedFrom
skos:definition
annotation statement.A nice figure is that this addition now brings the total number of
skos:definition
's up to 2186!!! Much better :)Anything further for me to do here folks? As always, review's appreciated.