I tested wildfire-mtbs dataset. The test code can be found here. The test report is also in this notebook.
Based on the validate report, I fixed some errors in our constructed shapes, including adding ssn namespaces for some shapes, adding 'sosa:ObservationCollection' to the domain constraint of 'sosa:hasFeatureOfInsterest.' and so on.
In general, the data shape conforms most of our shapes. There are still problems: one about actuation and one about observation (more details are in the notebook above). The latter violation is that each observation has to have exactly one FeatureOfInterest. However, once we use observation collection, we declare the relation 'hasFeatureOfInterest' between observation collection and feature of interest.In this case, there is no need to claim the relation between observation and feature of interest. We may need to change observationConstraints.
@zhurui0509 @cogan-shimizu
I am also not sure what should be in the paper regarding this testing.
I tested wildfire-mtbs dataset. The test code can be found here. The test report is also in this notebook.
Based on the validate report, I fixed some errors in our constructed shapes, including adding ssn namespaces for some shapes, adding 'sosa:ObservationCollection' to the domain constraint of 'sosa:hasFeatureOfInsterest.' and so on.
In general, the data shape conforms most of our shapes. There are still problems: one about actuation and one about observation (more details are in the notebook above). The latter violation is that each observation has to have exactly one FeatureOfInterest. However, once we use observation collection, we declare the relation 'hasFeatureOfInterest' between observation collection and feature of interest.In this case, there is no need to claim the relation between observation and feature of interest. We may need to change observationConstraints.
@zhurui0509 @cogan-shimizu
I am also not sure what should be in the paper regarding this testing.