Closed lewismc closed 4 years ago
I agree that - in the short term at least - Wikidata probably provides a good, succinct, source of definitions. But reviewing every text is unrealistic on any useful timescale, and might trigger discussions that may belong better over in ENVO.
So I'd suggest looking at a way to adopt the WIkidata definitions transparently. i.e. either
skos:exactMatch
or skos:closeMatch
etc to the Wikidata entryThen other definitions could be added alongside, which would reflect the rough/contested semantics that we are aiming for in SWEET?
I recognise that merely linking does not achieve the goal of getting a local text definition included, but maybe @carueda could do some magic in COR to fetch schema:description
values from the link for display purposes?
Thanks @dr-shorthair
I agree that - in the short term at least - Wikidata probably provides a good, succinct, source of definitions.
+1
But reviewing every text is unrealistic on any useful timescale, and might trigger discussions that may belong better over in ENVO.
+1
copy the descriptions over but into an annotation structure that allows the provenance to be recorded just add a suitable SKOS mapping link skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch etc to the Wikidata entry
We have examples of the following
### http://sweetontology.net/realmCryo/AlpineTundra
soreac:AlpineTundra rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreac:Tundra ;
rdfs:label "alpine tundra"@en ;
skos:closeMatch <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001371> ;
skos:definition [
rdfs:comment "A tundra ecosystem which exists at high altitudes and where vegetation is stunted due to low temperatures and high winds."@en ;
dcterms:source <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-4736> ;
dcterms:created "2019-12-10T06:11:13-08:00Z"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp ;
dcterms:creator <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4091-6059> ;
prov:wasDerivedFrom <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001371> ;
] .
wdyt?
Yes - that is pretty much the direction I was looking for.
Excellent. I'll go ahead and implement.
Hi folks, this is an updated attempt which extract's Wikidata
schema:description
's and map them tordfs:comment
's using OWLAPI instead of Jena write the data.I am looking for feedback here. I know the way that I've structured the annotations is not the way we want to do it but this gives us an idea of how useful the code I wrote by evaluating the results.
The initial results confirm that there are now 2077 occurences of
rdfs:comment
... this is not bad (assuming that they make sense)ISSUES
owl:versionIRI <Optional[http://sweetontology.net/human]/3.6.0> ;
is an issue. This should beowl:versionIRI <http://sweetontology.net/human/3.6.0> ;
. I'll work on fixing that.QUESTION How do we review the new
rdfs:comment
annotations to ensure that the make logical sense? Some optionsWhat do you guys think?
Thanks