Create ACQF.json

[siuc-nate]

First pass at creating a JSON-LD example for the ACQF

[rohit-joy]

@siuc-nate Please have a look at the suggestions. I didn't mark all of them, so please review all the text.

[philbarker]

On the ??? comments: these are useful in drafts like this as place holders for namespace abbreviations that haven't been decided yet.

None of the comments on the text values are relevant. The text should reflect what is in the QF being represented, it's not ours to edit.

On the whole, I think that code review in this repository is not necessary. We use this for discussions and sharing ideas. As far as I know, nothing is deployed from it. Code review creates unnecessary work and slows that down.

[siuc-nate]

Based on the comments above and in emails, should we keep the ??? or use ceasn: for them for now? @jeannekitchens @philbarker

I'll go over the other stuff here as well, thanks.

[philbarker]

Jeanne's suggestion was ceterms: which is the way I was leaning too. I think it'll be safe to use that.

[siuc-nate]

I'll use ceterms for now, but I think ceasn makes more sense. Thanks.

[jeannekitchens]

I have to say here that using the PR approach here is useful to have a way to flag and resolve specific questions etc.. and code changes. I think it's very useful to have the comments in one place and see the resolutions so I would not drop this process.

[philbarker]

@siuc-nate @jeannekitchens the doc we have is a Policy Document that quotes the QF. That makes it difficult to get some of the properties right: is the publication date of the Policy Doc the same as the QF? Are the authors the same? But such documents are useful, so do we need a way of referencing them from the QF?

[jeannekitchens]

@philbarker @siuc-nate we have to ask Eduarda specifically about the ACQF. She is the expert who led the development of it. For this example, we should go with what we see on the face of the policy doc. However, the document is via the ACQF website https://acqf.africa/. Per the website, the owner of the policy and all related guidelines is the African Union https://au.int//. The document shows the authors and contributors. The owner and publisher, I'd identify as the AU and we can have all of these questions in a list for Eduarda.

[siuc-nate]

@jeannekitchens Do we need to do that before we can merge this PR?

[jeannekitchens]

The goal of this initial example was not to include every possible property. Use the information I provided and merge. Please put it on the Tuesday agenda to discuss with Phil.

[siuc-nate]

Thanks @jeannekitchens

I updated the JSON to reference the AU as an organization that is the creator/publisher of the QF.

I'll need someone else to approve the PR in order to merge it, unless there's something else that needs changing.

[jeannekitchens]

Have Rohit or Phil approve it.

[siuc-nate]

@philbarker @rohit-joy Please see @jeannekitchens's message above