RFC 093: Describing the catalogue data model - #166
Draft
kenoir wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
RFC 010 set out to document the model in OWL, serve JSON, and offer a context for consumers wanting a graph. The artefacts have since diverged from the API: the Turtle links in RFC 010 all 404, the committed context.json still maps creators and publishers, the ontology and the context declare different namespaces, and none of the URIs resolve. This RFC proposes rebuilding those artefacts next to catalogue.yaml, publishing the ontology and new SKOS vocabularies from a static id.wellcomecollection.org, and adding three tests alongside the four that already check the OpenAPI spec, so divergence fails the build. Scope stops at describing our own model. Entity URIs, external profile mappings and any change to the catalogue graph are out of scope. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Preview
What does this change?
Adds RFC 093, which proposes rebuilding the artefacts RFC 010 set out: a JSON-LD context, the Turtle ontology and new SKOS vocabularies for our controlled terms. They live in
catalogue-api/reference/next tocatalogue.yaml, are published from a new staticid.wellcomecollection.org, and are covered by the same kind of drift tests that already check the OpenAPI spec against the code.RFC 010's artefacts have diverged from the API and nothing reports it. The Context section records what was checked, and on what date.
Files changed:
rfcs/093-catalogue-data-model-description/README.md: the RFC document.rfcs/README.md: RFC listing table regenerated by.scripts/create_table_summary.py.How to test
python3 .scripts/validate_rfc.pypython3 .scripts/create_table_summary.py --check-readmeHow can we measure success?
No runtime criteria; this is a documentation RFC. Success is agreement on the namespace, the only next step needing a decision outside the team.
Have we considered potential risks?
Documentation only; nothing is deployed by this PR. The risks of the proposal are in the RFC's Impact section, the significant one being that the vocabularies need cataloguing input for scope notes and AAT mappings.
Notes for reviewers
@baseto build URIs from bare string ids.RelatedConcept.conceptTypea prerequisite. Testing showed the context resolves related concepts with no API change, so that section was cut to a note about the missingidentifiersfield.