Adding samples

[stuarthendren]

Based on examples in the ies4 document.

I was running through these as an exercise to learn the modelling and thought it would make sense to add them to the repo.
There are a few differences, happy to change as preferred:

• Generally use _ in IRIs rather that %20 as easier to read.
• The existing example uses http://iso.org/iso8601#, so I've done the same, but the example in the docs uses http://iso8601.iso.org#.
• Changed the date in the sometimes example so the end is after the start.
• Used blank nodes in Characteristics and Measure example.
• I haven't done the Metadata example, wasn't sure what the dc: elements would be.
• Movement example - unsure of the extended data period.
• Corrects rdfs:subClassOf reference in Types example.
• I've not use any particular formatter.

[stuarthendren]

I also noticed that the relationships and period-of-time examples use ies:Employed but that doesn't appear to be in the ontology?

[MonkeyChap]

Hi - the %20 encoding is where there are spaces in the existing standard the URI is based on. I think for 8601 we need to do much more about mandating the specific format - e.g. use of Z, T instead of space, etc.

[paulc-dstl]

Hi - the %20 encoding is where there are spaces in the existing standard the URI is based on. I think for 8601 we need to do much more about mandating the specific format - e.g. use of Z, T instead of space, etc.

@MonkeyChap agreed re syntax of 8601 strings. We must have a syntax which is safe by default and does not require and additional encoding. In this specific example, it's not just spaces in the URIs, it's the colons which necessarily get encoded for use as URI components (colon is a reserved character as per RFC 3986).

Looking at the 8601 spec on wikipedia, there are options which would be natively web safe ie produce URIs which do not require further encoding. And this would apply to both positions in time as well as durations.

[paulc-dstl]

@stuarthendren apologies for taking so long to get onto this. Thanks for your input. Am getting on with a review.

[paulc-dstl]

These additions make the type assertions explicit.

[paulc-dstl]

These additions make the type assertions explicit.

Hmm. I reviewed the type assignments commit, but the review applies to all commits in the PR. So i have withdrawn the review and will look at each commit in turn before submitting the review again. Sorry about that.

I've also added @afizzycola for a second review as some of the additions look to be compliant IES but not sure if they conform to the established patterns (for example the role of chair in a meeting).

[paulc-dstl]

Detailed comments on commits to follow:

[afizzycola]

@stuarthendren thank you so much for creating these, they will be really handy for first time users of IES. Your work has also revealed some inconsistencies in the documentation which I will address in IES 4.3. Also, my apologies for taking so long to review this

[paulc-dstl]

@stuarthendren @afizzycola - just checking on the status of this - is everything now resolved, changes made, etc? TIA :-)

[stuarthendren]

Hi Paul - I had actually missed that there had been a review from @afizzycola - I can fix up those things, will take a look tomorrow. Though I'm not sure if other things have moved on now with the other recent changes - but I'll try to take account of those too.