Skip to content

640 consider usingadding dcat to represent our metadata#845

Merged
bnouwt merged 6 commits into
masterfrom
640-consider-usingadding-dcat-to-represent-our-metadata
May 15, 2026
Merged

640 consider usingadding dcat to represent our metadata#845
bnouwt merged 6 commits into
masterfrom
640-consider-usingadding-dcat-to-represent-our-metadata

Conversation

@bnouwt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@bnouwt bnouwt commented May 15, 2026

No description provided.

bnouwt added 6 commits April 28, 2026 09:18
Problem with the reasoner and it taking way too long to give any
results. Not sure if I can fix these, or whether this example is just
not viable.
Also:
- Improved binding set store markdown visualization.
- Fixed bug in example.
- Added dcat unit test.
Problem with the reasoner and it taking way too long to give any
results. Not sure if I can fix these, or whether this example is just
not viable.
Also:
- Improved binding set store markdown visualization.
- Fixed bug in example.
- Added dcat unit test.
It is now working with more specific rules instead of generic RDFS
rules.

Also:
- extended the README.md
- Removed Unit test, as this was not really necessary
@bnouwt bnouwt self-assigned this May 15, 2026
@bnouwt bnouwt linked an issue May 15, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
@bnouwt bnouwt merged commit 4f9a9ff into master May 15, 2026
2 checks passed
@bnouwt bnouwt deleted the 640-consider-usingadding-dcat-to-represent-our-metadata branch May 15, 2026 13:41
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.

Consider using/adding DCAT to represent our metadata

1 participant