Re: How does the ontology group support the correspondence table group #ontology #rdf #correspondencetables
Elias Sebastian Azzi
We have lists of activities and flows in different classifications.
- Each classification has its URI / is a super-class for all its elements?
- Each activity or flow has its URI and a property saying belongsTo "this classification" (redundant with being part of a class, but same as what was discussed for flows in #ontology)?
If this is the case I still find it quite challenging as many of the columns in the correspondence tables just refer to some codes, which are just codes of certain activities labels of which are provided in another column.I think we need to re-write the CSV files with the name-literals that we plan to use in the ontology/RDF of the activities and flows.
So are these just qualitative flow properties?I think we need to define some vocabulary (as Brandon already started in another thread) to describe the different type of correspondences. Brandon referred to this vocab https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#mapping
- 1-1, skos:exactMatch
- N-1, skos:broadMatch (second item is broader than first one)
- 1-N and M-N, in this skos vocab no option to add weights?