ISSUE-282 Initial trial editing matrFacility with specific mining concepts #283
Conversation
|
I should add that I believe this simple addition of three mining facility concepts can be merged as is. I'll open another issue to complete work in this area once I understand the contribution pattern. |
skybristol
changed the title
| @@ -147,6 +147,38 @@ somaf:Mine rdf:type owl:Class ; | |||
| rdfs:label "mine"@en . | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| ### http://sweetontology.net/matrFacility/Adit | |||
| somaf:Mine rdf:type owl:Class ; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's not how we had this classified on our end, but I tend to agree. I was looking at the rest of this that comes from the USMIN source (with reference back to the AGI dictionary).
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### http://sweetontology.net/matrFacility/BorrowPit | ||
| somaf:Mine rdf:type owl:Class ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be somaf:BorrowPit
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### http://sweetontology.net/matrFacility/GypsumQuarry | ||
| somaf:Mine rdf:type owl:Class ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be somaf:GypsumQuarry
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### http://sweetontology.net/matrFacility/Quarry | ||
| somaf:Mine rdf:type owl:Class ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be somaf:Quarry
| rdfs:subClassOf somaf:Quarry ; | ||
| rdfs:label "gypsum quarry"@en ; | ||
| skos:definition "An open or surface mineral working for the purpose of extracting gypsum"@en ; | ||
| prov:wasDerivedFrom "ISBN 0-922152-36-5" . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
prov:wasDerivedFrom has range prov:Entity, not obviously compatible with a string literal. Seems to me using something like dct:source would make more sense in this context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! Also what I was looking for. I'll look across SWEET further for dct:source. I'm interested to see how we are citing sources elsewhere. That reference piece seems to be missing quite a bit right now.
Speaking of a lack of source info, I was looking at SWEET's instantiation of minerals today in relation to how I'm working to bring Mindat minerals, along with the Strunz and Dana classifications, into our knowledge graph. Seems like an area maybe SWEET should cede territory to a domain group, focusing on perhaps clarifying higher level classes that help domains de/re-contextualize?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, SWEET should just bridge to a mineral domain ontology (didn't @smrgeoinfo create one?) as per @skybristol 's comment above.
|
@smrgeoinfo - Thanks so much for your response. I really appreciate the input. I'll update per your suggestions. |
In response to the issue I posted for this, I'm throwing this in as a trial balloon. I want to see what is involved in contributing to SWEET via the process set up currently. For this area, I have a couple dozen additional mining facility type concepts pulled from the 1997 AGI resource indicated in prov:wasDerivedFrom.
I would specifically welcome comments on the following: