Are "Named Individuals" included by mistake?

[paulmillar]

The ontology description page shows the ontology has various "Named Individuals".

These individuals appear to be ad hoc and poorly defined.

Also, the PaNET methodology deliverable does not define any Named Individuals.

These individuals might be intended as examples. If so, I think they should be moved outside of the PaNET ontology -- as they may cause confusion if included in the main ontology.

[spc93]

A few named individuals were added as examples of how the ontology might be used. They are not really part of the ontology. From: Paul Millar ***@***.***> Sent: 14 June 2022 15:41 To: ExPaNDS-eu/ExPaNDS-experimental-techniques-ontology ***@***.***> Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***> Subject: [ExPaNDS-eu/ExPaNDS-experimental-techniques-ontology] Are "Named Individuals" included by mistake? (Issue #52) The ontology description page<https://expands-eu.github.io/ExPaNDS-experimental-techniques-ontology/index-en.html> shows the ontology has various "Named Individuals". These individuals appear to be ad hoc and poorly defined. Also, the PaNET methodology deliverable [Image removed by sender. DOI] <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4806026> does not define any Named Individuals. These individuals might be intended as examples. If so, I think they should be moved outside of the PaNET ontology -- as they may cause confusion if included in the main ontology. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#52>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADGIGMAUGFCAB37LFR24LDDVPCKZTANCNFSM5YX7FODQ>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

…

-- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom

[spc93]

Happy to remove individuals. Any objections?

[paulmillar]

My suggestion is:

1. create a concrete change, in the form of a pull-request,
2. ask for feedback / review from others to verify the pull-request,
3. accept the pull-request (or, perhaps Alejandra does this?)

You can include some keywords in the commit to automatically close this issue once the pull request is accepted.

(Just give me a shout if you'd like more info on the more mechanical parts.)

HTH,
Paul.

[agbeltran]

I agree that those named individuals should be removed - if we want to keep the examples, we should have them in a separate file (separating Tbox and Abox)