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

Update SPARQL queries to match new ontology descriptions when new cache available #49

Open
jyucsiro opened this issue Feb 27, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jyucsiro
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@dr-shorthair
Copy link

Some work started here CSIRO-enviro-informatics/loci-integration-api#47

@benjaminleighton
Copy link

benjaminleighton commented Mar 13, 2020

@dr-shorthair can you comment on https://github.com/CSIRO-enviro-informatics/loci-cache-scripts/blob/master/docker/cache/resources/pre-condition-files/008_dataset_def.sparql does that need changing? I know there are somethings in there that maybe we don't need like the named individual stuff we can change that in another issue but is there anything effected by changes you know of?

@jyucsiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

jyucsiro commented May 6, 2020

@benjaminleighton can we close this?

@dr-shorthair
Copy link

I think the query that Ben pointed me at in #49 (comment) might be simplified by removing the

            a owl:NamedIndividual ;

from each insert. From a semantic POV there is no need for this assertion. However, perhaps you guys use this classifier somewhere else in the queries?

@benjaminleighton
Copy link

@jyucsiro and @dr-shorthair you are probably both in a better position to decide whether to close this and also to close out CSIRO-enviro-informatics/loci-integration-api#47 at the same time. I believe that 47 is mostly solved through another pull request you made Jonathan? Looking through that pull request here are the things to be considered:

  • Addition of a union to ensure that we pickup loci:datasets in addition to dcat:datasets
  • Change area lookups to use geox:inCRS
    Additionally there are changes in that pull request to remove transitiveOverlaps but I think we need them at the moment, and to change the ipo to dcterms:isPartOf which might be a nice to have if someone wants to implement it but not necessary.

Is there anything else that changed, structurally, that we need to account for? I'm guessing there aren't any direct dependencies in excelerator on iderdown now either but it might be worth checking with @shaneseaton .

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants