You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The https://gbv.github.io/jskos/jskos.html#registries for the current draft of "Registries" in JSKOS. We can rename in terminologyProviders: data to concepts and voc to schemes. The url field may be renamed to endpoint but this needs further discussion and examples.
The content of mappingProviders and occurrenceProviders may also be modified later, e.g.
I would suggest using "Registry" as specified in JSKOS (to make it consistent). I would also propose that there is actually no need to differentiate between terminology registries, mapping registries, and occurrence registries. It would be enough to have one config field "registries" which contains all the different ones in JSKOS format and Cocoda can decide which ones to use in which situation based on the available properties.
The config loading script was adjusted so that the format is backwards compatible with the current implementation. To actually use the new config format, further adjustments are needed, especially in the API. See also: #209, #168, #84.
The https://gbv.github.io/jskos/jskos.html#registries for the current draft of "Registries" in JSKOS. We can rename in
terminologyProviders
:data
toconcepts
andvoc
toschemes
. Theurl
field may be renamed toendpoint
but this needs further discussion and examples.The content of
mappingProviders
andoccurrenceProviders
may also be modified later, e.g.Field
occurrences
is not included in JSKOS specification for registries yet.Open question: name "Registry" or "Provider"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: