-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 290
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Using GBFS within a Linked Data/RDF publishing strategy #394
Comments
Probably good idea to wait until this breaking change passed: #354 |
Hello @pietercolpaert, I'm a Product Manager at MobilityData, working on our tools and initiatives to increase data quality. 👋 I have very limited experience with linked data, RDF, and context information. I think this is a great opportunity, there is discussions in GTFS around versioning and URL schemes mentioning linked data. I have a few questions to get a better understanding of what this proposal would imply:
|
Hi @isabelle-dr thanks for getting back to me: much appreciated!
Discoverability and interoperability are certainly big motivations:
These two examples give an idea of the motivation behind Linked Data, which I like to summarize as drastically lowering the cost of integrating a dataset in a different domain.
I was (and still am) proposing a complementary approach where we try to generate an RDFS vocabulary and SHACL schema based on the JSON Schema files. However, we already know from experimenting with it together with @andreipopi that additional configuration is going to be necessary as there’s no full 1 on 1 mapping between these. Just for being complete (this is not what I propose as it would requires changing your entire process as it is today and would broaden the scope of the GBFS schemas), the other way around would be possible in a more automated way: @ioggstream is working on RDF to JSON Schema: https://twitter.com/ioggstream/status/1473708713525534722
JSON-LD is one of the serializations in which Linked Data can be serialized. What I propose above would be a requirement before being able to use JSON-LD.
Disadvantage is that you’re going to do a little bit more. We’re going to document the extra configuration file that would be needed to document how the JSON schema can be translated towards RDFS and SHACL. Things I already think about: Per JSON schema we’ll need:
Next the JSON schema tooling, also RDF tooling will be able to look up definitions and validate a file in any RDF serialization against the SHACL shape. I don’t see this as the biggest advantage.
We can also include the major version number of GBFS in the web address of the term. Otherwise I don’t expect any impact. |
This discussion has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 60 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
We are still working on a PR as a side-project. Not stale, give us a bit more time :) |
This discussion has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 60 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Still working on it. We are:
Will share the link to the spec, processor codebase and github action applied on the GBFS json schemas after validating it internally. |
This discussion has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
You can find the code of our experiments here: https://github.com/jiaoxlong/json-schema-ld/tree/main We found the generated RDF Vocabulary and SHACL shape at this moment to not be good enough. The idea however remains interesting to pursue. |
Hi @pietercolpaert, |
This discussion has been closed due to inactivity. Discussions can always be reopened after they have been closed. |
Who am I
I’m a professor at Ghent University in Belgium, researching how to publish knowledge on Web-Scale. Previous work of my research team includes Linked Connections as a light-weight interface for public transit route planning, helping the European Railway Agency with publishing a dataset on railway infrastructure, helping the Flemish government publishing their base registries such as their address database and today we’re working on the Flemish Sensor Data Space, in which have a use case on bike sharing.
Motivating user stories
Solution
Convert the terms you define in the JSON schema towards an RDFS vocabulary. This can be done using a 1 on 1 mapping (I’m willing to pull request this if this is desired).
What should be the base URL on which all terms will be dereferenceable?
I’d propose
https://w3id.org/gbfs#
. This way, for example the termnum_docks_available
would get the URIhttps://w3id.org/gbfs#num_docks_available
. We can open a pull request at https://github.com/perma-id/w3id.org to add a redirect from w3id.org/gbfs to for example a github pages on this repository with this RDF file behind it. This way machines will be able to look up the authoritative definitions.Is your potential solution a breaking change?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: