search

otmarjr / volute

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/volute
0 stars 0 forks source link

Format of vocabulary master files #3

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The distributed (and normative) SKOS files are generated to a greater or lesser 
extent.  This 
might consist of a conversion from some completely different format, such as 
the IAUT files 
which originate in the easily-parsed native format of the Lexicon application 
which originally 
managed them, or a relatively lightweight processing involving adding missing 
but mechanially 
inferrable relations.

Question: what should be the format of the master files?

Possible resolution 1: nothing mandated in the document -- the format of the 
master file should 
be whatever is most convenient, as long as the generated and distributed files 
are valid SKOS.

Possible resolution 2: SKOS, in Turtle notation, possibly requiring some 
post-processing to add 
omitted-but-inferrable relations.  This is easy to read and write, and it is 
simple enough that it 
would be feasible to create from scratch a parser for the relevant subset of 
it, if that were 
somehow necessary.

Possible resolution 3: some more fundamental no-punctuation format, such as 
that for the 
Lexicon program

No 2 seems the best balance between manageability and long-term maintainability.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by norman.x.gray on 17 Dec 2007 at 9:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
To some extent this is really an issue of what format should the new IVOAT 
master
file and any other subsequent group vocabularies. The master format for existing
vocabularies is by default whatever format the current owner of that vocabulary
publishes them in, e.g. the master format for the IAUT93 is the LEXICON format 
while
the master format for the AOIM is the numbered bullets in the word document 
published
by the IVOA.

With regard to the IVOAT, we need a format that allows the author to easily 
check the
vocabulary and all of its links. I believe this means we need some machine
processable format such as skos that can be checked automatically.

Original comment by alasdair...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2008 at 9:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Rick raised the question of whether we need to specify the SKOS format of the 
master
file. 

Rick's preference would be to explicitly choose to support RDF/XML.

Norman and Alasdair's position is that it can be any valid SKOS format, i.e. N3,
turtle or any other rdf notation. Reasons for this are
1. the xml model does not capture all rdf graphs
2. there are plenty of tools for translating from one format to another

Original comment by alasdair...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2008 at 10:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Moved to the major-issues list.  See issue distformat-2 at (currently) 
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ivoa/vocabularies/issues#distformat-2

Original comment by norman.x.gray on 5 Feb 2008 at 4:17