1- The object being described shall not be identified by the URI of the ontology
-- In JSON the @id should ne be the URI of the ontology but the URI of the ontology in AgroPortal =>
"id": "http://data.agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/SDGIO/submissions/2",
(because the metadata described in AgroProtal is actually the metadata of the object stored in AgroPortal not the original ontology. The goal of using the Get my metadata back buttons is indeed to enable an ontology developer to introudce back these metadata inside the original ontology file)
-- In NT, similarly the URI should not be the one of the original ontology.
-- In RDF, similary the rdf:about should not be the one of the original ontology.
2- IN RDF outputs, we need the namespaces of the properties being declared. For the moment only rdf, rdfs and owl are.
3- We need to be able to distinguish 2 downloading profiles:
"MOD"
"AgroPortal metadata"
Currently the profile returned is the AgroPortal one. In some cases, the correspondances with MOD1.4 properties is not direct (i.e. AgroPortal use another property than MOD1.4). We would need a feature that when we click on the button, we can select the profile (popup question) and then download the set of properties as defined in AgroPortal or in MOD1.4.
Réfléchir à l’idée d'implémenter la distribution des profiles de métadonnées avec la content négociation “by profile” https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof-conneg/
We need a few improvements for this feature that I start capturing here: Examples are described with : http://agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/SDGIO
1- The object being described shall not be identified by the URI of the ontology -- In JSON the @id should ne be the URI of the ontology but the URI of the ontology in AgroPortal => "id": "http://data.agroportal.lirmm.fr/ontologies/SDGIO/submissions/2", (because the metadata described in AgroProtal is actually the metadata of the object stored in AgroPortal not the original ontology. The goal of using the Get my metadata back buttons is indeed to enable an ontology developer to introudce back these metadata inside the original ontology file) -- In NT, similarly the URI should not be the one of the original ontology. -- In RDF, similary the rdf:about should not be the one of the original ontology.
2- IN RDF outputs, we need the namespaces of the properties being declared. For the moment only rdf, rdfs and owl are.
3- We need to be able to distinguish 2 downloading profiles:
4- ... to come..
At the same time #116 need to be fixed.