Changes between Version 72 and Version 73 of rdfstore


Ignore:
Timestamp:
10/30/12 22:19:45 (12 years ago)
Author:
simonp
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • rdfstore

    v72 v73  
    126126 * More...
    127127
    128 === Review of UWA Developer patch ===
     128=== Brief Review of UWA Developer patch ===
    129129
    130130==== XML2RDF and RDF2XML ====
    … …  
    147147==== Other Java Changes ====
    148148
    149 I
     149Minor: to include DataManagerRDF calls in DataManager and provide init info from GeoNetwork.java - fine.
    150150
    151151==== Implications for wider adoption of RDF Store and Encoding in GeoNetwork ====
    152 
    153 Profile support in ISO19115 mapping: introduce additional rdf namespaces/concepts?
    154152
    155153Speed of RDF triple stores versus Lucene? Free text search in Apache JENA RDF triple store/sparql queries is supported by using Lucene to help - see LARQ sub-project: http://jena.apache.org/documentation/larq/index.html
    156154
    157155Spatial searching: At present we do mixed spatial and textual searches for OGC CSW query support by filtering Lucene searches with query results from spatial database via !GeoTools. How would this work in SPARQL? OGC GeoSPARQL would be part of the approach here I suppose: http://code.google.com/p/geospatialweb/ How mature is the GeoSPARQL implementation for Apache JENA or OpenRDF-sesame? (see links section: these projects don't look like they are mainstream parts of RDF frameworks yet?). Also, we use !GeoTools to parse the OGC filter language - how would this be converted to a GeoSPARQL query? (hmm).
    158 
    159156
    160157Relationship to DCAT proposal? This implementation already turns metadata records into RDF so that external semantic web/linked data services can obtain RDF from !GeoNetwork. Do we need more RDF?
    … …  
    165162
    166163RDF mappings for other standards? Probably most popular standards will have projects in place or ongoing to do mappings to RDF (eg. dublin core), however some of the more substantial ISO efforts (ISO19110, ISO19135 and others) are less likely to have these so could be a fair body of work to do these (that said, some of the metadata standards have some concepts mapped to ISO19115 so could be reasonably straightforward to use that mapping to the RDF for ISO19115).
    167 
    168 ?
    169164
    170165=== New libraries added ===