Preparation and maintenance of a machine-readable representation of soil physical methods, including Concept Scheme the soil physical measurement methods described in Soil Physical Measurement and Interpretation for Land Evaluation. Keppel K. Coughlan; HAmish H Cresswell; Niel N. McKenzie. Publisher CSIRO Copyright 2002.
0
stars
0
forks
source link
problems with how we have dealt with related Concept Schemes in RVA view #8
Presenting multiple concept schemes the way we have may cause problems in the future:
1.The metadata of RVA interface is per skos:Concept Scheme . How we have it makes getting the metadata right in the display challenging
You can't download the full ConceptScheme, with the metadata for each procedure for example, in on .tt; at 'download button' , per ConceptScheme
I see RVA has added a 'add related internal vocabulary' or 'add external related vocabulary' that you can add to metadata for RVA for each ConceptScheme.
I imagine none of these work arounds to relate concept schemes to eachother is formalised as SKOS (SKOS can't do that)
So, it is just a matter of what will work better for all in the future.
I wonder, if we should have had seperate ConceptSchemes as we did per ASLS chapter, and assocaited them with eachtoher at RVA upload/metadata
What do we want to do going forward? I don't think this need have implications for the URIs (eg you can still have soil physical properties in URI before the brown book ie http://anzsoil.org/def/au/spm/spmile .
This was typed quick. Hope it makes some sense. Would be interested in your thoughts @abhritchie @dr-shorthair
Relates to soil chem methods and soil phys methods https://demo.vocabs.ardc.edu.au/vocabs/myvocabs https://vocabs.ardc.edu.au/viewById/634
Presenting multiple concept schemes the way we have may cause problems in the future: 1.The metadata of RVA interface is per skos:Concept Scheme . How we have it makes getting the metadata right in the display challenging
I see RVA has added a 'add related internal vocabulary' or 'add external related vocabulary' that you can add to metadata for RVA for each ConceptScheme.
I imagine none of these work arounds to relate concept schemes to eachother is formalised as SKOS (SKOS can't do that)
So, it is just a matter of what will work better for all in the future.
I wonder, if we should have had seperate ConceptSchemes as we did per ASLS chapter, and assocaited them with eachtoher at RVA upload/metadata
What do we want to do going forward? I don't think this need have implications for the URIs (eg you can still have soil physical properties in URI before the brown book ie http://anzsoil.org/def/au/spm/spmile .
RVA screen shot below
Make some sense? Thoughts?