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

tdwgutility_organizedInClass values have the tdwgutility: namespace rather than being the actual class IRI #89

Open
baskaufs opened this issue Jun 30, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
on-hold StaDocGen Technical Issues strictly technical in nature, unrelated to the content of the standard itself.

Comments

@baskaufs
Copy link

The values that are given in the source CSV tables have values in their tdwgutility_organizedInClass column that aren't real class IRIs. I think most, if not all, of the classes used to group the terms are ones that LtC has actually defined. For example the Latimer Core Scheme class has the IRI http://rs.tdwg.org/ltc/terms/LatimerCoreScheme (i.e. ltc:LatimerCoreScheme), but in the tdwgutility_organizedInClass it is given the value http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/attributes/LatimerCoreScheme (i.e. tdwgutility:LatimerCoreScheme).

It may be that this happened by looking at the Audiovisual Core CSVs as an example, since it uses "fake" class properties that it doesn't actually mint to organize its terms into groups (vs. DwC, which uses real DwC properties to group its terms). Since LtC mints "real" properties, they should be used here.

The practical implication of this is that the tdwgutility:organizedInClass link in the RDF goes to an IRI that doesn't exist. Given that almost nobody looks at the RDF, I don't think this is a critical thing to fix right now -- it could be done in the next release. I am assuming that the primary use of this is to group the terms for @ben-norton's StatDocGen script, so he will need to make sure that when this gets fixed, it doesn't break his script.

@rondlg rondlg added the Technical Issues strictly technical in nature, unrelated to the content of the standard itself. label Jul 11, 2024
@ben-norton ben-norton self-assigned this Jul 11, 2024
@rondlg
Copy link
Contributor

rondlg commented Nov 14, 2024

If this is the method for documenting release changes and updates then I suggest we hold this issue until we have our annual review.

@rondlg rondlg added the on-hold label Nov 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
on-hold StaDocGen Technical Issues strictly technical in nature, unrelated to the content of the standard itself.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants