{ "title": "The graph learning lab: connect evidence clearly — Ontologies & vocabularies", "text": "MODAVIS (2026). The graph learning lab: connect evidence clearly — Ontologies & vocabularies. Research notebooks, October 2026 · Interactive reuse and evidence edition. https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/ontologies/graph-lab/", "bibtex": "@misc{modavis_ontologies_graph_lab_2026_10_workbench,\n author = {{MODAVIS}},\n title = {The graph learning lab: connect evidence clearly — Ontologies & vocabularies},\n year = {2026},\n month = {10},\n version = {2026-10-workbench},\n url = {https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/ontologies/graph-lab/},\n note = {Content SHA-256: c9626f9774a27c9e4870f6f7e8df8d2d56943aec2f042b872a80c35f7d484709}\n}", "url": "https://modavis.org/editions/2026-10-workbench/ontologies/graph-lab/", "sha256": "c9626f9774a27c9e4870f6f7e8df8d2d56943aec2f042b872a80c35f7d484709", "edition": "2026-10-workbench", "date": "2026-10-09", "canonicalPayload": "{\"book\":{\"number\":\"07\",\"slug\":\"ontologies\",\"title\":\"Ontologies & vocabularies\"},\"chapter\":{\"blocks\":[{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"Edit, run real validation, repair and download.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/workbench/\",\"label\":\"Continue with the interactive workbench\"}],\"type\":\"links\"},{\"id\":\"ontology-learning-lab\",\"intro\":\"Four short decisions connect plain-language diagrams to the released ontology terms. Answer in any order and follow the links when you want the complete example.\",\"lessons\":[{\"id\":\"identity\",\"label\":\"Subjects\",\"next\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/#write-first-triples\",\"label\":\"Build the runnable identity graph\"},\"options\":[{\"correct\":true,\"feedback\":\"Correct. The relation connects two distinct identities without claiming completeness or equivalence.\",\"id\":\"represents\",\"label\":\"model representationOf instrument\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"sameAs collapses their identities. A representation relation is not an identity claim.\",\"id\":\"same\",\"label\":\"model owl:sameAs instrument\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"One identifier should name one thing at one identity layer. Keep the digital resource separate.\",\"id\":\"one\",\"label\":\"Use the instrument’s identifier for the model file too\"}],\"question\":\"Which connection is appropriate for a model and the instrument it depicts?\",\"text\":\"A physical instrument and a digital representation need separate identifiers. MODAVIS uses representationOf to connect them. Cuntz’s GLB depicts aspects of the organ; changing a mesh does not change the identity of the physical instrument.\",\"title\":\"Keep what is represented separate from its representation\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"Read the triple as “ex:model representationOf ex:instrument”. Never merge the two identities with owl:sameAs.\",\"layout\":\"compare\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"MusicalInstrument: the research subject.\",\"icon\":\"compass\",\"label\":\"Instrument IRI\",\"value\":\"ex:instrument\"},{\"detail\":\"DigitalRepresentation: a separate digital resource.\",\"icon\":\"cube\",\"label\":\"Representation IRI\",\"value\":\"ex:model\"}],\"title\":\"Two subjects, one explicit relation\"}},{\"id\":\"membership\",\"label\":\"Roles\",\"next\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"https://github.com/modavis-project/modavis-ontology-network/blob/0.1.0/examples/valid/violin.ttl\",\"label\":\"Read the published generic violin example\"},\"options\":[{\"correct\":true,\"feedback\":\"Exactly. Keep the assignment and its scope separate from the component identity.\",\"id\":\"qualified\",\"label\":\"Component identity plus a qualified role-assignment record\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"A label does not preserve the assignment relationship or its scope.\",\"id\":\"label\",\"label\":\"Only rename the component “sound generator”\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"A function can be contextual. Missing scope does not establish a permanent universal role.\",\"id\":\"always\",\"label\":\"Treat its current role as a permanent identity\"}],\"question\":\"You need to record a component’s functional role in a scoped configuration. What do you preserve?\",\"text\":\"The released violin fixture distinguishes a string component, its membership in the instrument, and a FunctionalRoleAssignment of sound generator. Use qualified memberships and assignments when structural kind or scope matters. The component itself is not just its function.\",\"title\":\"A role assignment is a record of its own\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"Use ComponentMembership when instrument, parent, type or scope matters. The direct hasComponent link is a discovery shortcut.\",\"layout\":\"network\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"The generic released example works beyond organs.\",\"icon\":\"compass\",\"label\":\"Instrument\",\"value\":\"A violin\"},{\"detail\":\"A component identity is distinct from membership.\",\"icon\":\"wave\",\"label\":\"Component\",\"value\":\"Its string\"},{\"detail\":\"A FunctionalRoleAssignment carries the role.\",\"icon\":\"network\",\"label\":\"Assigned role\",\"value\":\"Sound generator\"}],\"relations\":[\"has a component record\",\"has a role assignment\"],\"title\":\"A component’s role is an identified assignment\"}},{\"id\":\"evidence\",\"label\":\"Evidence\",\"next\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/\",\"label\":\"Follow the released observation’s sources\"},\"options\":[{\"correct\":true,\"feedback\":\"Yes. The file-history timestamp and source-series flag support different statements.\",\"id\":\"unknown\",\"label\":\"The session date remains unresolved; retain the timestamp qualification\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"That interpretation is not established by the released evidence.\",\"id\":\"measured\",\"label\":\"The pipe was measured at that precise 2020 instant\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"The series flag does not identify a specific session day. Preserve what is known and what remains unknown.\",\"id\":\"series\",\"label\":\"It was certainly measured on a known day in 2019\"}],\"question\":\"The workbook was modified in 2020. What should your reused claim say about the measurement session?\",\"text\":\"The real Cuntz observation gives 1281 mm and a source-cell flag. Its resultTime is qualified as a workbook modification timestamp, while another flag identifies a source series of 2019. Retaining both lets another researcher understand the record without inventing its measurement-session date.\",\"title\":\"Keep production history and applicability on separate paths\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"The actual measurement-session date remains unresolved. Preserve the qualification with the timestamp.\",\"layout\":\"compare\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"Workbook modification timestamp, 10:33:05Z.\",\"icon\":\"calendar\",\"label\":\"File history\",\"value\":\"16 September 2020\"},{\"detail\":\"A source-series flag, not a recovered session date.\",\"icon\":\"quote\",\"label\":\"Source flag\",\"value\":\"Series 2019\"}],\"title\":\"Two dates answer different questions\"}},{\"id\":\"checks\",\"label\":\"Validation\",\"next\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/#validate-graph\",\"label\":\"Run the positive and negative checks\"},\"options\":[{\"correct\":true,\"feedback\":\"Correct. Record the inputs, version and scope; scientific interpretation still needs evidence and review.\",\"id\":\"contract\",\"label\":\"It meets the checks run against that graph and profile\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"Shape conformance is not a truth test for historical or acoustic claims.\",\"id\":\"truth\",\"label\":\"All its statements are scientifically true\"},{\"correct\":false,\"feedback\":\"Different profiles can add requirements. The report must name which checks were actually run.\",\"id\":\"all\",\"label\":\"It meets every possible publication or application profile\"}],\"question\":\"Your graph passes the released exchange shapes. What can you conclude?\",\"text\":\"The generic learning graph conforms when the model represents the separate instrument. The intentionally invalid variant fails because it creates a self-representation cycle. SHACL can expose that structural problem. It cannot decide whether a historically plausible reconstruction is correct.\",\"title\":\"Use a structural check, then review the claim\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"A passed shape check does not prove the historical truth of the statement.\",\"layout\":\"compare\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"Express the ontology’s semantic distinctions.\",\"icon\":\"network\",\"label\":\"OWL\",\"value\":\"Identity & relationships\"},{\"detail\":\"Check a graph against a declared profile.\",\"icon\":\"check\",\"label\":\"SHACL\",\"value\":\"Required record structure\"}],\"title\":\"Meaning and record checking are separate jobs\"}}],\"mode\":\"graph\",\"title\":\"Make the graph explain its own claims\",\"type\":\"lab\"},{\"id\":\"take-graph-to-work\",\"text\":\"A small graph you can reuse today\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"type\":\"visual\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"Context bindings qualify the assertion’s applicability; provenance describes the record’s production. These are additional links, not a single undifferentiated date field.\",\"layout\":\"network\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"A selector locates evidence in a fixed source snapshot.\",\"icon\":\"book\",\"label\":\"Source fragment\",\"value\":\"An inspectable passage\"},{\"detail\":\"Supporting, opposing or another governed role.\",\"icon\":\"network\",\"label\":\"Evidence relation\",\"value\":\"How the source bears on it\"},{\"detail\":\"Subject, predicate, value, status and generating activity.\",\"icon\":\"quote\",\"label\":\"Assertion\",\"value\":\"An attributable claim\"}],\"relations\":[\"is used by an evidence relation\",\"is evaluated by that relation\"],\"title\":\"A qualified claim remains connected to its grounds\"}},{\"text\":\"Choose one question from your own collection and write down the subject, the statement, the source and the scope. Give the statement and source their own identities when you need to preserve review or disagreement. Translate only those relationships whose published definitions fit the question. Then validate, inspect the report and ask another reader to follow the source trail.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"boundary\":\"These sentences explain graph structure. They are not a copy-and-paste RDF serialization or a claim that English relationship labels are normative ontology terms.\",\"concept\":\"A graph stores named things and explicit relationships. RDF expresses a statement as a subject, a relationship and an object; many such statements can share the same subject.\",\"expanded\":false,\"id\":\"cuntz-graph\",\"scenario\":\"Consider the Cuntz pipe represented as rank:ged:pipe:key-036. A measurement, a source workbook and an activity can all refer to it without being squeezed into one text field.\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0\"}],\"steps\":[{\"text\":\"“This observation concerns that pipe.” Here the observation is the subject, the feature-of-interest relationship connects it to the pipe, and the pipe is the object.\",\"title\":\"Start with a plain sentence\"},{\"text\":\"The observation points to the measurement activity and raw-result workbook realization. The activity names Philipp Hosbach as its agent. These links answer different questions: what was observed, where it came from and who is credited.\",\"title\":\"Connect the evidence\"},{\"text\":\"A reader can follow the pipe to an observation, then to the workbook cell, unit and processing history. That chain is more useful than merely finding the same word in several descriptions.\",\"title\":\"Ask a connected question\"}],\"takeaway\":\"A graph makes relationships addressable and traversable; it does not make the linked assertions automatically true.\",\"title\":\"What does a knowledge graph add to a catalogue entry?\",\"type\":\"example\",\"visual\":{\"caption\":\"The arrows express the teaching sequence. Consult the release for the exact machine-readable relationships.\",\"layout\":\"network\",\"nodes\":[{\"detail\":\"The physical research subject.\",\"icon\":\"compass\",\"label\":\"Instrument\",\"value\":\"Cuntz\"},{\"detail\":\"The released record identifies a particular pipe.\",\"icon\":\"network\",\"label\":\"Component record\",\"value\":\"Pipe key-036\"},{\"detail\":\"A result about the identified feature and property.\",\"icon\":\"database\",\"label\":\"Observation\",\"value\":\"1281 mm\"}],\"relations\":[\"follow the component\",\"inspect its observation\"],\"title\":\"Read the connections as a sentence\"}},{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"A complete Turtle fixture, pinned exchange validation and an executable query.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/\",\"label\":\"Build and query the starter graph\"},{\"detail\":\"One actual released observation, with its timestamp and source qualification.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/\",\"label\":\"Read the Cuntz evidence walkthrough\"},{\"detail\":\"Carry identified resources, evidence and exact bytes together.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/vao/reuse/\",\"label\":\"Reuse through a VAO carrier\"}],\"type\":\"links\"}],\"intro\":\"Practice the decisions that keep a knowledge graph understandable and reusable: separate subjects, qualify roles, preserve source meaning, and interpret validation honestly.\",\"overview\":{\"example\":{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"#cuntz-graph\",\"label\":\"See the worked example\"},\"summary\":\"A graph stores named things and explicit relationships. RDF expresses a statement as a subject, a relationship and an object; many such statements can share the same subject.\",\"takeaway\":\"A graph makes relationships addressable and traversable; it does not make the linked assertions automatically true.\"},\"slug\":\"graph-lab\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Terms, governed vocabularies, versioned shapes and interpretation guide.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 · immutable release\"},{\"detail\":\"The real observation and model used for the Cuntz examples. Its content version differs from VAO formatVersion 0.5.0.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · content release 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"\",\"href\":\"https://github.com/modavis-project/modavis-ontology-network/blob/0.1.0/docs/INTERPRETATION_GUIDE.md\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS 0.1.0 interpretation guide\"}],\"title\":\"The graph learning lab: connect evidence clearly\"},\"date\":\"2026-10-09\",\"edition\":\"2026-10-workbench\",\"figures\":{},\"glossary\":[]}", "payload": { "edition": "2026-10-workbench", "date": "2026-10-09", "book": { "slug": "ontologies", "title": "Ontologies & vocabularies", "number": "07" }, "chapter": { "slug": "graph-lab", "title": "The graph learning lab: connect evidence clearly", "intro": "Practice the decisions that keep a knowledge graph understandable and reusable: separate subjects, qualify roles, preserve source meaning, and interpret validation honestly.", "sources": [ { "label": "MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 · immutable release", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086", "detail": "Terms, governed vocabularies, versioned shapes and interpretation guide." }, { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · content release 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "The real observation and model used for the Cuntz examples. Its content version differs from VAO formatVersion 0.5.0." }, { "label": "MODAVIS 0.1.0 interpretation guide", "href": "https://github.com/modavis-project/modavis-ontology-network/blob/0.1.0/docs/INTERPRETATION_GUIDE.md", "detail": "" } ], "blocks": [ { "type": "links", "items": [ { "label": "Continue with the interactive workbench", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/workbench/", "detail": "Edit, run real validation, repair and download." } ] }, { "type": "lab", "id": "ontology-learning-lab", "title": "Make the graph explain its own claims", "intro": "Four short decisions connect plain-language diagrams to the released ontology terms. Answer in any order and follow the links when you want the complete example.", "mode": "graph", "lessons": [ { "id": "identity", "label": "Subjects", "title": "Keep what is represented separate from its representation", "text": "A physical instrument and a digital representation need separate identifiers. MODAVIS uses representationOf to connect them. Cuntz’s GLB depicts aspects of the organ; changing a mesh does not change the identity of the physical instrument.", "visual": { "layout": "compare", "title": "Two subjects, one explicit relation", "nodes": [ { "label": "Instrument IRI", "value": "ex:instrument", "detail": "MusicalInstrument: the research subject.", "icon": "compass" }, { "label": "Representation IRI", "value": "ex:model", "detail": "DigitalRepresentation: a separate digital resource.", "icon": "cube" } ], "caption": "Read the triple as “ex:model representationOf ex:instrument”. Never merge the two identities with owl:sameAs." }, "question": "Which connection is appropriate for a model and the instrument it depicts?", "options": [ { "id": "represents", "label": "model representationOf instrument", "feedback": "Correct. The relation connects two distinct identities without claiming completeness or equivalence.", "correct": true }, { "id": "same", "label": "model owl:sameAs instrument", "feedback": "sameAs collapses their identities. A representation relation is not an identity claim.", "correct": false }, { "id": "one", "label": "Use the instrument’s identifier for the model file too", "feedback": "One identifier should name one thing at one identity layer. Keep the digital resource separate.", "correct": false } ], "next": { "label": "Build the runnable identity graph", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/#write-first-triples", "detail": "" } }, { "id": "membership", "label": "Roles", "title": "A role assignment is a record of its own", "text": "The released violin fixture distinguishes a string component, its membership in the instrument, and a FunctionalRoleAssignment of sound generator. Use qualified memberships and assignments when structural kind or scope matters. The component itself is not just its function.", "visual": { "layout": "network", "title": "A component’s role is an identified assignment", "nodes": [ { "label": "Instrument", "value": "A violin", "detail": "The generic released example works beyond organs.", "icon": "compass" }, { "label": "Component", "value": "Its string", "detail": "A component identity is distinct from membership.", "icon": "wave" }, { "label": "Assigned role", "value": "Sound generator", "detail": "A FunctionalRoleAssignment carries the role.", "icon": "network" } ], "caption": "Use ComponentMembership when instrument, parent, type or scope matters. The direct hasComponent link is a discovery shortcut.", "relations": [ "has a component record", "has a role assignment" ] }, "question": "You need to record a component’s functional role in a scoped configuration. What do you preserve?", "options": [ { "id": "qualified", "label": "Component identity plus a qualified role-assignment record", "feedback": "Exactly. Keep the assignment and its scope separate from the component identity.", "correct": true }, { "id": "label", "label": "Only rename the component “sound generator”", "feedback": "A label does not preserve the assignment relationship or its scope.", "correct": false }, { "id": "always", "label": "Treat its current role as a permanent identity", "feedback": "A function can be contextual. Missing scope does not establish a permanent universal role.", "correct": false } ], "next": { "label": "Read the published generic violin example", "href": "https://github.com/modavis-project/modavis-ontology-network/blob/0.1.0/examples/valid/violin.ttl", "detail": "" } }, { "id": "evidence", "label": "Evidence", "title": "Keep production history and applicability on separate paths", "text": "The real Cuntz observation gives 1281 mm and a source-cell flag. Its resultTime is qualified as a workbook modification timestamp, while another flag identifies a source series of 2019. Retaining both lets another researcher understand the record without inventing its measurement-session date.", "visual": { "layout": "compare", "title": "Two dates answer different questions", "nodes": [ { "label": "File history", "value": "16 September 2020", "detail": "Workbook modification timestamp, 10:33:05Z.", "icon": "calendar" }, { "label": "Source flag", "value": "Series 2019", "detail": "A source-series flag, not a recovered session date.", "icon": "quote" } ], "caption": "The actual measurement-session date remains unresolved. Preserve the qualification with the timestamp." }, "question": "The workbook was modified in 2020. What should your reused claim say about the measurement session?", "options": [ { "id": "unknown", "label": "The session date remains unresolved; retain the timestamp qualification", "feedback": "Yes. The file-history timestamp and source-series flag support different statements.", "correct": true }, { "id": "measured", "label": "The pipe was measured at that precise 2020 instant", "feedback": "That interpretation is not established by the released evidence.", "correct": false }, { "id": "series", "label": "It was certainly measured on a known day in 2019", "feedback": "The series flag does not identify a specific session day. Preserve what is known and what remains unknown.", "correct": false } ], "next": { "label": "Follow the released observation’s sources", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/", "detail": "" } }, { "id": "checks", "label": "Validation", "title": "Use a structural check, then review the claim", "text": "The generic learning graph conforms when the model represents the separate instrument. The intentionally invalid variant fails because it creates a self-representation cycle. SHACL can expose that structural problem. It cannot decide whether a historically plausible reconstruction is correct.", "visual": { "layout": "compare", "title": "Meaning and record checking are separate jobs", "nodes": [ { "label": "OWL", "value": "Identity & relationships", "detail": "Express the ontology’s semantic distinctions.", "icon": "network" }, { "label": "SHACL", "value": "Required record structure", "detail": "Check a graph against a declared profile.", "icon": "check" } ], "caption": "A passed shape check does not prove the historical truth of the statement." }, "question": "Your graph passes the released exchange shapes. What can you conclude?", "options": [ { "id": "contract", "label": "It meets the checks run against that graph and profile", "feedback": "Correct. Record the inputs, version and scope; scientific interpretation still needs evidence and review.", "correct": true }, { "id": "truth", "label": "All its statements are scientifically true", "feedback": "Shape conformance is not a truth test for historical or acoustic claims.", "correct": false }, { "id": "all", "label": "It meets every possible publication or application profile", "feedback": "Different profiles can add requirements. The report must name which checks were actually run.", "correct": false } ], "next": { "label": "Run the positive and negative checks", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/#validate-graph", "detail": "" } } ] }, { "type": "heading", "id": "take-graph-to-work", "text": "A small graph you can reuse today" }, { "type": "visual", "visual": { "layout": "network", "title": "A qualified claim remains connected to its grounds", "nodes": [ { "label": "Source fragment", "value": "An inspectable passage", "detail": "A selector locates evidence in a fixed source snapshot.", "icon": "book" }, { "label": "Evidence relation", "value": "How the source bears on it", "detail": "Supporting, opposing or another governed role.", "icon": "network" }, { "label": "Assertion", "value": "An attributable claim", "detail": "Subject, predicate, value, status and generating activity.", "icon": "quote" } ], "caption": "Context bindings qualify the assertion’s applicability; provenance describes the record’s production. These are additional links, not a single undifferentiated date field.", "relations": [ "is used by an evidence relation", "is evaluated by that relation" ] } }, { "type": "p", "text": "Choose one question from your own collection and write down the subject, the statement, the source and the scope. Give the statement and source their own identities when you need to preserve review or disagreement. Translate only those relationships whose published definitions fit the question. Then validate, inspect the report and ask another reader to follow the source trail." }, { "type": "example", "id": "cuntz-graph", "title": "What does a knowledge graph add to a catalogue entry?", "concept": "A graph stores named things and explicit relationships. RDF expresses a statement as a subject, a relationship and an object; many such statements can share the same subject.", "scenario": "Consider the Cuntz pipe represented as rank:ged:pipe:key-036. A measurement, a source workbook and an activity can all refer to it without being squeezed into one text field.", "steps": [ { "title": "Start with a plain sentence", "text": "“This observation concerns that pipe.” Here the observation is the subject, the feature-of-interest relationship connects it to the pipe, and the pipe is the object." }, { "title": "Connect the evidence", "text": "The observation points to the measurement activity and raw-result workbook realization. The activity names Philipp Hosbach as its agent. These links answer different questions: what was observed, where it came from and who is credited." }, { "title": "Ask a connected question", "text": "A reader can follow the pipe to an observation, then to the workbook cell, unit and processing history. That chain is more useful than merely finding the same word in several descriptions." } ], "takeaway": "A graph makes relationships addressable and traversable; it does not make the linked assertions automatically true.", "boundary": "These sentences explain graph structure. They are not a copy-and-paste RDF serialization or a claim that English relationship labels are normative ontology terms.", "sources": [ { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release." }, { "label": "MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086", "detail": "Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties." } ], "visual": { "layout": "network", "title": "Read the connections as a sentence", "nodes": [ { "label": "Instrument", "value": "Cuntz", "detail": "The physical research subject.", "icon": "compass" }, { "label": "Component record", "value": "Pipe key-036", "detail": "The released record identifies a particular pipe.", "icon": "network" }, { "label": "Observation", "value": "1281 mm", "detail": "A result about the identified feature and property.", "icon": "database" } ], "caption": "The arrows express the teaching sequence. Consult the release for the exact machine-readable relationships.", "relations": [ "follow the component", "inspect its observation" ] }, "expanded": false }, { "type": "links", "items": [ { "label": "Build and query the starter graph", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/reuse/", "detail": "A complete Turtle fixture, pinned exchange validation and an executable query." }, { "label": "Read the Cuntz evidence walkthrough", "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/cuntz/", "detail": "One actual released observation, with its timestamp and source qualification." }, { "label": "Reuse through a VAO carrier", "href": "/notebooks/vao/reuse/", "detail": "Carry identified resources, evidence and exact bytes together." } ] } ], "overview": { "summary": "A graph stores named things and explicit relationships. RDF expresses a statement as a subject, a relationship and an object; many such statements can share the same subject.", "takeaway": "A graph makes relationships addressable and traversable; it does not make the linked assertions automatically true.", "example": { "label": "See the worked example", "href": "#cuntz-graph", "detail": "" } } }, "glossary": [], "figures": {} } }