-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Redundant axioms? #18
Comments
At least for some of those, I think the “A is a B that C’s” is necessary. These are equivalence axioms, not subclass axioms. Consider:
CivilOrganization ≡ cco:Organization and (cco:has_role some cco:CivilianRole)
Without the cco:Organization qualifier, a reasoner would infer that person with a civilian role is a civil organization.
I didn’t check all the property domains, so you may be right about other classes.
|
Sorry, should have been clearer. I intended to say that if you have both the subclass and the equivalence you don't need the subclass: By policy/convention you might always require a purely taxonomic backbone. Certainly for readability/comprehension have the explicit subclass axioms makes the overall structure clearer. re: domain/ranges there were also about 30 domain/range axioms which can be inferred from other domain/range + inverse properties and sometimes a subproperty e.g. Removing these would drastically reduce the readability of the ontology even if they are redundant from an entailment perspective. |
Interesting discussion. Thanks. We don't currently have a policy in place re redundant axioms. My guess is that we land more on the side of readability unless there is a performative concern. I have been told that certain applications cannot work with equivalency axioms, eg- treating the ontology as a graph, thus having the redundant subclass assertions may be helpful to some users. |
Shouldn't be any performance issues, readability is a good thing. I'll close this as resolved. |
Found 8 instance where there was both a simple subclass axiom as well as more Aristotelian equivalent classes axiom for the same class i.e.
A is a B
A is a B that C's.
Not sure about CCO policy/convention re this type of stuff. let me know if this is too much.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: