Open MichaelClerx opened 4 years ago
What format would we want, @jonc125 ? Everything in a centralised triple store? A separate file per model?
A file per model, primarily. If they're packaged up in a COMBINE Archive (or a Git repo with equivalent content) you'd also want the separate file listed in the manifest for that model.
Would that give us something like
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="./model-file.cellml#some_variables_id">
?
Yep, that's the kind of thing. (Though the "./" isn't strictly necessary, and shouldn't be assumed!)
Cross-posting from https://github.com/ModellingWebLab/project_issues/issues/75 (thanks @skeating )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AngoIjQovM7DpCwR0W6TP0admMloGa9k/view
The draft has is
and isVersionOf
and while a full implementation might have some complications creating something that reads the bits we like and ignores the rest should be fairly staightforward, I think
(Instead of waiting for a full implementation that we can interface with)
E.g.
Would that make sense @jonc125 @skeating ? And who wants to have a first go at implementing something?
We'll have to discuss with @nickerso if that would make us compatible with PMR in the short run :D
That seems reasonable to me. So the load model function can take any of:
When reading the manifest.xml, it looks for the entry with master='true'
and checks it's a format="http://identifiers.org/combine.specifications/cellml"
(or sub-version 1.0 thereof).
What format would we allow for metadata files? http://identifiers.org/combine.specifications/omex-metadata
at least I'm guessing, maybe a generic RDF mimetype, maybe also .ttl or anything rdflib can read?
And coordinate with PMR so that the format is similar?