-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
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-217 qudt alignment #221
Conversation
@dr-shorthair I just noted this review request ... sorry, I won't be able to review for the time being. Since I'm noting 3 reviewers now and that 3 reviews are required for merge, may I ask you to consider other possible extra reviewers? |
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.
Is good work. You don't have to take my input on the changes to the Year mapping, but I think it's a bit of an improvement that saves other people the trouble of looking it up the way I just did.
alignments/sweet-qudt-mapping.ttl
Outdated
skos:closeMatch <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/YR> ; | ||
skos:closeMatch <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/YR_Common> ; | ||
skos:closeMatch <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/YR_Sidereal> ; | ||
skos:closeMatch <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/YR_TROPICAL> ; |
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.
Well, it's definitely picking nits, but I would suggest making YR_TROPICAL a closeMatch, and the other three a relatedMatch. Reason being that YR_TROPICAL is quite a bit closer numerically than the other 3, thus more likely to have been the intended meaning of the SWEET term for 'year'. The others are clearly different numbers. (If only there had been a definition in SWEET...)
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.
Thanks John - like you say, if only we knew what SWEET intended
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.
If you can resolve and approve we can move forward now I think.
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.
(I accepted your suggestion and updated the code.)
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.
+1 from me. I went through more than half of the alignments and they all seemed sensible to me.
I have a non-blocking side question for you @dr-shorthair, was there a version of QUDT that you aligned SWEET master branch against? If so, do you have any idea of how quickly this alignment may become stale... if at all?
Maybe the next step would be for us to work on automating an alignment if at all possible... this is easy to ponder and difficult to implement but I thought I'd ask it none-the-less. Thank you
Since v2 QUDT is maintained continuously. So I aligned SWEET to current state. I am on the QUDT TAB and am pushing to clarify the policy around revisions, but one thing that has to be non-negotiable is that any published URI will remain de-referenceable, though the representation might be just a pointer to a preferred representation. That should ensure no 404 links, i.e. the alignment should not go stale. As for automating the alignment - well the SWEET representation is not very expressive, so most of the work would be on SWEET side. I did this one manually - a bit tedious but I judged it would be quicker than trying to automate this time. |
Understood @dr-shorthair thanks for the commentary. |
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.
manually checked alignments - seem fine!
@graybeal can you please take a look at @dr-shorthair 's most recent additions? Thank you |
can't right now, no. (can't even find them, not enough time or github-fu. But I thought I made that pull request and he's included it, so there isn't anything else to review? |
@graybeal the mapping graph is here: https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/blob/issue217-qudt-alignment/alignments/sweet-qudt-mapping.ttl |
Ran Agreement-Maker but it didn't find a lot of matches, while getting a lot wrong.
So I reverted to a manual process.
This graph contains alignments from reprSciUnits to QUDT Units and QUDT Prefixes.
Most can be matched, and I've advised QUDT of the ones that are missing from their vocabulary - see qudt/qudt-public-repo#231
All except one alignment uses
skos:exactMatch
as the alignment predicate.For
reprSciUnits:year
the conversion factor is different to all four of the definitions for Year in QUDT so I just left it atskos:closeMatch
for now.There will also be potential for alignment to QUDT QuantityKinds but that looks like quite a big job.
Related to #217