Closed skybristol closed 10 months ago
After working through the upper level ontologies and seeing how this is all laid out, I think we will be able to incorporate the vast majority of the GSO into the GeoKB, sticking close to its formal ontology representation but giving us flexibility in terms of adding additional claims as needed. I've prepped a spreadsheet for review of the rock types from the TTL source:
https://github.com/Loop3D/GKM/blob/master/Loop3D-GSO/Modules/GSO-Geologic_Rock_Material.ttl
I'll pass this on to our geoscientists for review and comment. I'm particularly interested in the inclusion of individual reference sources to see how we might incorporate these in an explicit way.
Some initial thoughts on GeoKB mapping focused on the initial case of reworking our rock type classification:
One of the bigger things to work out here was the Common Core Ontologies basis of the GSO and how that relates to the Wikibase framework, which is not based on strict semantic modeling or the Web Ontology Language (OWL). This whitepaper from a couple years ago helped in some respects. As stated in other discussions, I'm trying to balance pragmatism with explicit modeling of concepts in a way that encourages broad-based participation in building the knowledgebase as opposed to needing overly cumbersome ontology engineering just to get knowledge captured. We want a little more rigor than is evidenced in Wikidata but we want a framework that encourages everyone we let in the front door to contribute. Part of that comes from laying down an appropriate foundation with well-constructed ontologies like the GSO so that there are many of the appropriately modeled items to link to.
I need to dig into the GeoScience Ontology to work out how it blends with what we already have and use it to fill in blanks as a primary source. The biggest thing in this is working through the mapping of the formal ontology structure to the slightly less formal Wikibase model.
Source is on GitHub here - https://github.com/Loop3D/