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
The current mapping of NeXus definitions to the Ontology uses a flattening which is good for representing if an AppDef is referencing (or citing) a base class, but it looses all cardinality information (like something is being optional or required) and cannot represent specialisations (e.g. in docstrings and/or in enumerations). NeXus Ontology should preserve all these information, too.
Since we are now generating a comprehensive glossary of the NeXus controlled Vocabulary, it can probably easily feed the ontology with an extended list of terms/concepts. Instead of the loose relationship “citesGroup”, we could use “HAS_A” or in appropriate cases the “IS_A" or “SAME_AS" relationships. Whenever it is adequate, we could also set cardinality according to the settings min/maxOccurs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current mapping of NeXus definitions to the Ontology uses a flattening which is good for representing if an AppDef is referencing (or citing) a base class, but it looses all cardinality information (like something is being optional or required) and cannot represent specialisations (e.g. in docstrings and/or in enumerations). NeXus Ontology should preserve all these information, too.
Since we are now generating a comprehensive glossary of the NeXus controlled Vocabulary, it can probably easily feed the ontology with an extended list of terms/concepts. Instead of the loose relationship “citesGroup”, we could use “HAS_A” or in appropriate cases the “IS_A" or “SAME_AS" relationships. Whenever it is adequate, we could also set cardinality according to the settings min/maxOccurs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: