Skip to content
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

Updates to improve status in OBO dashboard #20

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 25, 2024
Merged

Conversation

balhoff
Copy link
Member

@balhoff balhoff commented Jan 25, 2024

  • Deprecate part_of relation, since an equivalent property is already included (belongs_to).
  • Remove tautology uses of owl:Thing.
  • Use dcterms namespace instead of dc.

@balhoff balhoff merged commit 31442f5 into master Jan 25, 2024
@hlapp
Copy link
Contributor

hlapp commented Jan 25, 2024

Thanks for this @balhoff. Can we in the future agree that all PRs require review before being merged? There are a lot of dependencies on CDAO (for good or bad).

@balhoff
Copy link
Member Author

balhoff commented Jan 25, 2024

@hlapp, absolutely, sorry about that. I wasn't sure there were others paying attention here. Please let me know if you see anything to reconsider in this PR.

@hlapp
Copy link
Contributor

hlapp commented Jan 29, 2024

I think the two non-trivial changes here are (a) changing the identifier (IRI) of the property under which to find a definition, and (b) re-axiomatizing the has property.

Change (a) could throw off some custom-built UI, but I don't know about any that are used in the context of CDAO. So I think this should nonetheless be inconsequential at the practical level.

Change (b) changes (at least potentially) reasoning results, so I have more reservations about it. Is this change necessary for some use-case, or motivated by other reasons? Can there be a public feedback period? So in short, if it's reasonably possible to turn this into its own issue where a rationale is given and potential consequences outlined, with an associated PR, that'd be ideal. But if there's already dependency on that change somewhere, I guess we can also leave the change in place, Though even in that case, it'd still be good to have this change documented and referenceable in an issue for later.

@balhoff
Copy link
Member Author

balhoff commented Jan 30, 2024

@hlapp there should not be any reasoning changes, since CDAO_0000194 and CDAO_0000190 have been previously asserted as equivalent properties (and still are). Since I marked CDAO_0000194 as deprecated, I wanted to make sure all usages in axioms were in terms of CDAO_0000190 rather than CDAO_0000194. I can turn this into an issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants