Scenario Ontology: Link to OpenDRIVE map

[jdsika]

I am looking at the following element:

"scenario:trafficSpace": {
      "@type": "general:Link",
      "general:url": {
        "@value": "https://inavlid.link.com/my_map.xodr",
        "@type": "xsd:anyURI"
      },
      "general:type": "Document"
    }

I think a map is its own asset with its own meta data description. In this case we would depend with a scenario on a map that has already been instantiated as a separate asset and should be referenced through the asset id?

Maybe @lenasauermann has an opinion here as well?

[heuerfin]

Yes, we thought of that too. And we would also prefer to use the DID as a link. However, we weren't sure if xsd:anyURI is the correct type for a DID.
According to https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ "DIDs are URIs that associate a DID subject with a DID document allowing trustable interactions associated with that subject." so the xsd:anyURI would be probably appropriate.

According to https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt I found the following regex for URI ^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))?.
Using https://www.regextester.com/ and the sample DID did:web:registry.gaia-x.eu:ExampleServiceOffering:tbkmzxk9LQZ-6mfDovXUPycG7hpE639RFRFs this matches.

From this I would conclude that this is okay then? Are there any other opinions? Othewise I would change it and create a pull request.

[jdsika]

@robertschubert what is your opinion? It makes sense to me. What did method should we use for assets?

[heuerfin]

I just talked wit @lenasauermann about it. I'll create a new branch and use a DID.

[jdsika]

The other question is if we want to define "asset bundles" in a generic way. So remove these nested links and remove a separate ontology for a bundle?

[heuerfin]

I'm not sure about that one. Last time we discussed this, we concluded that we will not use bundles inside our ontology. The ontology however, should offer the oppertunity to modell required and optional "dependencies" or links. A data provider/marketplace can then offer a bundle based on these dependencies.

However, we can reopen that discussion.

[jdsika]

I am ok if you discussed it!

[jdsika]

@lenasauermann I think you missed the change here: https://github.com/GAIA-X4PLC-AAD/ontology-management-base/blob/main/scenario/scenario_shacl.ttl

[heuerfin]

You mean the example in there? https://github.com/GAIA-X4PLC-AAD/ontology-management-base/blob/main/scenario/scenario_shacl.ttl#L207C23-L207C54

[lenasauermann]

@heuerfin @jdsika Is this done?