Clarify Xref of IDOs

[Mttbnchtt]

141 The IDs of the IDOs is not appropriate for the ontology since are mostly just integers. As @pbuttigieg suggested, based on the API CLARISA, we called them CLARISA:1, etc. Here is a snippet of CLARISA code:

{ "code": "1", "description": "Increased resilience of the poor to climate change and other shocks", "isCrossCutting": false, "srfCrossCuttingIssue": null }

We need to verify whether the solution that we adopted is appropriate or we should change it. I will ask Elizabeth on the first occasion.

[pbuttigieg]

@elizabetharnaud

[marieALaporte]

Sounds good to me. And maybe the CLARISA domain can be defined somewhere as clarisa.cgiar.org. So eventually clarisa.cgiar.org/1 can dereference this specific IDO 1. I had a meeting few weeks ago with the MARLO team in the context of the CGIAR metadata WG, and discussed that the controlled terms that will be made available through clarisa should be accessible in that fashion

[Mttbnchtt]

Thanks @marieALaporte. Just to be sure, are you suggesting to use "clarisa.cgiar.org/1" as xref for the first IDO (and similarly for the others)? Or are you suggesting to ask the MARLO team or Elizabeth about this option?

[pbuttigieg]

@marieALaporte @Mttbnchtt I believe xrefs need to either be a full URL/IRI (with associated protocol, such as HTTP) or a CURIE-style ID. So I assume this would be https://clarisa.cgiar.org/1 ?

[marieALaporte]

I am fine with the CURIE style ID, CLARISA:1. @pbuttigieg, where would we define the base URI (or URL) if we go for a CURIE style ID? @Mttbnchtt I am going to check with the CLARISA team that the base URL is https://clarisa.cgiar.org

[pbuttigieg]

@pbuttigieg, where would we define the base URI (or URL) if we go for a CURIE style ID?

We'd have to create a mapping file somewhere. We usually use CURIE-style IDs when we can't find a good URI/IRI. The resolvable and dereferenceable IRI is very much preferred.

@Mttbnchtt I am going to check with the CLARISA team that the base URL is https://clarisa.cgiar.org

Great, let's try to use these if we can

[marieALaporte]

in fact, it is more something like https://clarisa.cgiar.org/api/srf-sub-idos/1.1.1

Would that work?

[pbuttigieg]

Yes, that would be great. Users can then use that AP to dive into the right API.

[marieALaporte]

I can send to @Mttbnchtt the list of IDOs and sub-IDOs with the full API URL is this is useful?? @Mttbnchtt do you feel comfortable using the API directly or should I extract the content and save it as JSON or csv for you?

[pbuttigieg]

I can send to @Mttbnchtt the list of IDOs and sub-IDOs with the full API URL is this is useful??

Very, please do. @Mttbnchtt: use these as the xref for the class.

@Mttbnchtt do you feel comfortable using the API directly or should I extract the content and save it as JSON or csv for you?

It would be very useful to attach the list to this issue in CSV.

[marieALaporte]

This is a csv file that I had to save as text file for attaching it to the issue. It contains the URL of each IDO. The ones that are not numeric don't work, I don't know why. Let me know if this is good. I can do the same for sub-IDOs

IDOs.txt

[pbuttigieg]

Great! Thanks @marieALaporte. A similar file for sub-IDOs would be very useful. @Mttbnchtt where would you like the sub-IDO.txt file to go? Do you have a dedicated issue for the sub-IDOs?

@Mttbnchtt use these as your xrefs. If changes are needed (due to the errors noted above) we can make changes in another PR.

I suggest @Mttbnchtt creates a new issue about validating the URls that don't resolve (linking it to this one) so we can close this one.

[marieALaporte]

the sub-IDOs list is ready. @Mttbnchtt let me know where to attach it.

[Mttbnchtt]

Thanks a lot, @marieALaporte. I created issue #143 for the xref of sub-IDOs.

[pbuttigieg]

Great, @Mttbnchtt please close this issue when we've merged #141

[Mttbnchtt]

We have merged #141. Thanks to @pbuttigieg and @marieALaporte for your help. I close this issue now.