Skip to content
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

fix ontology definition #161

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 22, 2019
Merged

fix ontology definition #161

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 22, 2019

Conversation

rokroskar
Copy link
Member

Using dcterms is no longer necessary and we are using schema.org instead - therefore the graph query needs to be modified.

Copy link
Member

@lorenzo-cavazzi lorenzo-cavazzi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not working for me at the moment. As soon as I switch from dcterms to schema, I always get no result from the sparql query. Should I update something else at the same time (changes needed on the graph-service as well?)

@rokroskar
Copy link
Member Author

rokroskar commented Jul 17, 2019

Right, I suppose there should be an OR in the query... as it is now you need to rebuild the graph with renku-python>=0.5.1.

@lorenzo-cavazzi
Copy link
Member

ok, that should be fixed in renku-graph since the graph rebuilt is done there, right?

@rokroskar
Copy link
Member Author

ok, that should be fixed in renku-graph since the graph rebuilt is done there, right?

you mean the renku-python version? Yes - but I think for now we can just check for both predicates.

@rokroskar
Copy link
Member Author

can you try again? I just pushed a change that should make it work with the old ontology as well.

Copy link
Member

@lorenzo-cavazzi lorenzo-cavazzi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now it works.

Do we keep both predicates only for a short time because we will re-index all the projects or is this staying for the long term?

@rokroskar
Copy link
Member Author

Presumably for a short time. This will happen frequently over the next weeks as we converge on a graph that we like unfortunately...

@rokroskar rokroskar merged commit 99ba16a into master Jul 22, 2019
@rokroskar rokroskar deleted the 160-fix-ontology branch July 22, 2019 22:26
@lorenzo-cavazzi lorenzo-cavazzi added this to the 0.4.1 milestone Jul 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants