-
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
added rdfs:comment(s) from v2.3 #246
Conversation
added rdfs:comment "Horticulture is the art and science of the cultivation of plants"@en ; this is a one off to get the process right.
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." - Dorothy Parker |
@brandonnodnarb this is the result of executing your SPARQL query correct? Can you link it here please? |
We need to make a decision on whether the definitions are to be structured as blank nodes (as is done with all other current definitions) or as a specified annotation property (which seems more like what you have done in this PR). |
@lewismc yes and no. :) I did use a SPARQL query but it was a breathtakingly simple query to print all SWEET URIs with their associated A file now exists with turtle statements for each URI with the associated
I posted the first one in this PR to start the discussion on how and where these should go. As we just discussed, three options are relevant. The first involving a blank node, as per the pattern for multiple definitions. An alternative would be creating a custom annotation property to ensure the v2.3 comments are notated explicitly. Something like:
with actual values being:
Another option is simply creating a separate file which one would need to load explicitly to see the 'old' comments. I would think this would be put in with the mapping files and, as v2.3 is no longer relevant, could just sit there without needing a ton of editing :) Again, the idea behind bringing these up is mostly to use them to help automate generating a Semantic Indicator Value, or SIV if you like :), with relation to other vocabulary effots like GCMD, Wikidata, USGS Thesaurus, etc., with the idea these old rdf:comment values would be replaced with updated and properly cited values. I'm inclined to create the mapping file as that seems to make the most sense, and should need much upkeep once we have it. It also really only entails making a valid header and import statement(s) and it's good to go. Thoughts? Preferences? |
This is brilliant @brandonnodnarb thank you for the detail. |
@lewismc Each line should be a valid ttl statement. If I add a proper header, including namespaces and the import of sweetAll.ttl we should be able to load that singular file and import all of SWEET with these comments included. I will investigate and post back. |
Updating this PR. I removed the horticulture example and added three files:
As it's currently constructed the For convenience I also edited the catalog-v001.xml to point to the local I originally thought these could go in the mappings directory, but this also makes sense to me. @lewismc are you able to sanity check? |
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.
Excellent work @brandonnodnarb
+1 from me
It was left in error. Replaced with the import statement for sweet_v23Comments.ttl
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.
Moved ttl files to src directory on branch. This was my error. All good now.
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
@ESIPFed/semtech can you guys please review? |
added
rdfs:comment "Horticulture is the art and science of the cultivation of plants"@en ;
this is a one off to get the process right.