You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Validation of a lot of these could be semi-automated;
e.g.
S1: conform to conventions (do not include definiendum at the start)
S3: Use the genus differentia form (basic matching of text patterns)
S7: Avoid circularity (text match to see if definition includes the definiendum)
S11: Match text and logical definitions (performed using the text annotator interface)
Any validation would likely be highly sensitive test with a lot of things people would consider false positives due to natural lexical variation and style preferences etc. We could think of this as being an extremely opinionated "black" for ontologies.
As a separate ontology library that depends on OAK?
The argument for 1 is that we already have structural checks (validation against LinkML OMO schema), some minimal lexical checks, reasoner checks (using robot plugin) in here already, so it is convenient and coherent to have a one stop shop.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
cmungall
changed the title
Add definition validation to OAK
Add validation of textual definitions to OAK
Oct 10, 2022
The following paper https://philpapers.org/archive/SEPGFW.pdf lays out guidelines for definitions in ontologies
I summarized these here: https://douroucouli.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/ontotip-write-simple-concise-clear-operational-textual-definitions/
Validation of a lot of these could be semi-automated;
e.g.
Any validation would likely be highly sensitive test with a lot of things people would consider false positives due to natural lexical variation and style preferences etc. We could think of this as being an extremely opinionated "black" for ontologies.
Where would such a library belong?
The argument for 1 is that we already have structural checks (validation against LinkML OMO schema), some minimal lexical checks, reasoner checks (using robot plugin) in here already, so it is convenient and coherent to have a one stop shop.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: