Closed tomkralidis closed 1 year ago
Which one is intended for description of e.g. variables of a dataset? If there is not a predefined terminology to use (will require an easy governance mechanism for addition of new terms as experienced by both CF and GCMD) there is a specific need to identify the terminology using URI/identifiers. This will also enable semantic translations in search interfaces targeting different communities.
themes/concepts
would be in scope for variables, where the concepts
would describe the variables and the scheme
would point to the associated vocabulary.
Makes sense. How do you relate to the identifier of a concept, assuming the content of concept is a human readable form of the concept itself? And it would be no easy distinction between various concepts (e.g. what is a variable/parameter, what is the generation mechanism e.g. satellite, numerical simulation or observation) without parsing the schema then?
Concerning utilisation of identifiers for concepts etc I think this can be illustrated by the science on schema.org approach for similar terms:
{
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"name": "OCEANS",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://gcmd.earthdata.nasa.gov/kms/concepts/concept_scheme/sciencekeywords",
"url": "https://gcmd.earthdata.nasa.gov/kms/concept/91697b7d-8f2b-4954-850e-61d5f61c867d",
"termCode": "91697b7d-8f2b-4954-850e-61d5f61c867d"
},
{
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"name": "ice core studies",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://vocabularyserver.com/cnr/ml/snowterm/en/",
"url": "https://vocabularyserver.com/cnr/ml/snowterm/en/index.php?tema=29330",
"identifier": {
"@type": "PropertyValue",
"propertyID": "https://registry.identifiers.org/registry/ark",
"value": "ark:/99152/t3v4yo3eeqepj0",
"url": "https://vocabularyserver.com/cnr/ml/snowterm/en/?ark=ark:/99152/t3v4yo3eeqepj0"
}
}
There are different ways of handling this, but as you can see in addition to identifying the vocabulary you have identifiers for the individual elements which is easier to use than the text when doing on the fly semantic mappings between different terminologies.
Would it make sense to have a type characteristic (e.g. parameter) here as well? To identify scope for a term easier than look up the terminology (helps on parsing side to determine ways forward).
Qualified concepts came up today during a WCMP2/WIGOS/CDM discussion. Associated issue put forth in https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/issues/188
FYI based on updates in https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogcapi-records/issues/188, PR issued in #78
As discussed during TT-WISMD 2022-12-16, there was some discussion/concern that building out concepts as objects (vs flat array) makes WCMP2 less simple. We do need more documentation to articulate the value of the updated structure in #78.
As discussed during TT-WISMD 2023-01-11:
name
seems superfluousPR #78 updated.
Implemented in #78.
WCMP2 (via OARec) provides both
keywords
andthemes/concepts
properties. These are both used as (optional) catalogue queryables. The general idea is thatkeywords
provides a list of free form terms/tags, whereasthemes/concepts
provide terms from controlled vocabularies.It may be challenging for users to know which to use for which purpose, so we should make clear which to use and when/for what purpose.