Updating queries #19
Updating queries #19
Conversation
|
|
||
| ORDER BY ?ID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ORDER BY ?ID | |
| ORDER BY ?ID |
|
I wonder what editor did you use ? may be we could/should add some vim/emacs modelines to make it consistent? |
| OPTIONAL {?measure nidm:isAbout ?federatedLabel }. | ||
| OPTIONAL {?measure nidm:hasLaterality ?laterality }. | ||
| } | ||
| ORDER BY ?ID ?softwareLabel |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it be sufficient to become consistent across runs? may be add more into the mix here, e.g.
| ORDER BY ?ID ?softwareLabel | |
| ORDER BY ?ID ?softwareLabel ?tool @federatedLabel |
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking of adding a study name to differentiate the output and aid referencing sourced tools/data, is there such a label?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dunno... I just see above that you are selecting only select distinct ?ID ?tool ?softwareLabel ?federatedLabel ?laterality ?volume . IMHO better that to start with, get some samples from the "lake", and see then if things change when others to run the queries
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I ran it against the ReproLake_dev and it looks a bit cleaner with tools as the second ordering:
ORDER BY ?ID ?tool ?softwareLabel
Added 4 new scripts and corrected tabulation and added comments to other scripts.