Encode some metadata information related to entities in the ontology metadata

[jonquet]

Similar to what is suggested in #1140 I would love to see Protégé encode directly within the owl:Ontology metadata the following information (that MOD tries to standardize):

Property name	Definition	URI
Object preferred label property	MOD: Property used to specify preferred name (BioPortal definition).	mod:prefLabelProperty
Object synonym property	MOD: Property used to specify synonyms (BioPortal definition).	mod:synonymProperty
Object definition property	MOD: Property used to specify the definition of a class (BioPortal definition).	mod:definitionProperty
Object author property	MOD: Property used to specify the author of a class (BioPortal definition).	mod:authorProperty
Object obsolete property	MOD: Property used to specify an obsolete class.	mod:obsoleteProperty
Object creation date property	MOD: Property used to specify the date of creation of a class or another object in the ontology.	mod:createdProperty
Object modification date property	MOD: Property used to specify the date of modification of a class or another object in the ontology.	mod:modifiedProperty
Hierarchy property	MOD: Property used to specify the hierarchy (e.g. rdfs:subClassOf or skos:broader).	mod:hierarchyProperty

This information is somehow somewhere within Protégé ... and it will strongly facilitate the reuse of the ontology if the information about the properties used to encode entities where explicitly defined within the ontology. I also believe it would also encourage ontolofy developer to be rigorous and know what they have to say about an entity... and avoid using rdfs:label for half of the entities and then skos:prefLabel for the other half ... which is technically possible but make the reuse of the ontology cumbersome.

[cmungall]

I think something like this is sorely needed.

Rather than proliferating meta annotation properties, how about bundling these in profiles. A profile could be associated with a linkml shacl or shex schema, allowing for validation too (eg in OBO our definition AP has cardinality 0..1 but is also marked as recommended). In LinkML it's possible to also specify mappings, or there could be an sssom file for the profile.

Profiles could be centrally managed and versioned, or a local file analogous to catalog.xml, at the ontology maintainers discretion

We may also want a way of specifying slight deviations from profiles.

[jonquet]

Any ontology validation based on shape languages is indeed useful.
Still do we really need another mechanism than an RDF statement to express such a triple:
"ontology X (subject) uses for object creation property (predicate) the property Y"

I am only concerned about being sure this info "travel" with the ontology... and although its true that if proliferate a bit the number of metadata properties, this is simple and self descriptive. If only Protégé could automatically generate those statements, no one will never read them.. unless the tools ;)
(a bit like the <----- Generated with the OWL API ------> line at the end of the file )

[matthewhorridge]

I also like the idea of profiles for this