-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
UCO ontology files should make room for resources about other ontologies #387
Labels
Milestone
Comments
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 26, 2022
References: * #387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
7 tasks
7 tasks
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 26, 2022
References: * #387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/CASE-Examples
that referenced
this issue
Jun 8, 2022
References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/casework.github.io
that referenced
this issue
Jun 8, 2022
No effects were observed on Make-managed files. References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
PR 388 has passed its review checklist. |
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to ucoProject/ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org
that referenced
this issue
Jun 22, 2022
A follow-on patch will regenerate Make-managed files. References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to ucoProject/ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org
that referenced
this issue
Jun 22, 2022
References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 * ucoProject/UCO#389 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/CASE-Examples
that referenced
this issue
Jul 1, 2022
A follow-on patch will regenerate Make-managed files. * ucoProject/UCO#387 * ucoProject/UCO#389 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/CASE-Examples
that referenced
this issue
Jul 21, 2022
No effects were observed on Make-managed files. References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/casework.github.io
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2022
A follow-on patch will regenerate Make-managed files. References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 * ucoProject/UCO#389 * ucoProject/UCO#391 * ucoProject/UCO#396 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/casework.github.io
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2022
References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 * ucoProject/UCO#389 * ucoProject/UCO#391 * ucoProject/UCO#396 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
ajnelson-nist
added a commit
to casework/CASE
that referenced
this issue
Aug 19, 2022
This is a preparation for UCO Issue 387, where a third level of subdirectory depth was added. Before the UCO Git submodule pointer is updated to incorporate UCO Issue 387's resolution, the `/bin/ls` command will emit that one of its shell wildcards didn't work, and the command will exit 0. This does not fail the Make process. To avoid complexities with Git merging, the UCO submodule pointer is not updated in this patch. The Makefile shell recipe declines to use `find` due to potentially incorporating CI artifacts. References: * ucoProject/UCO#387 Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
9 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Disclaimer
Participation by NIST in the creation of the documentation of mentioned software is not intended to imply a recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that any specific software is necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Background
This proposal is, in short, "Code-motion."
The UCO IRI structure was revised recently to follow this form, originally prescribed and implemented in CASE 0.4.0, Change Proposal 34:
'https://ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org/' resource '/' sub-resource '/' concept
To better understand by example, consider the
action:Action
concept, which has this IRI:https://ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org/uco/action/Action
Some question had come up during this proposal about the redundant-seeming inclusion of the
resource
path-element. Wouldn't that always beuco
for UCO, andcase
for CASE?The
resource
path-element was left to leave room for expansion, so UCO would be able to deploy ontology files that might not necessarily be entirely under UCO's conceptual umbrella.UCO's transition to SHACL has presented a motivation to make use of this flexibility. Often, ontologies are implemented in OWL, and concepts might be found worth integrating into UCO. However, it is so far infrequent that other ontologies being reviewed by UCO provide SHACL shapes for validating data that use concepts from those ontologies.
To maintain a separation of ontology files fully scoped to UCO from ontology files that are developed to improve integration with other ontologies, this proposal will move UCO's Turtle files down a directory.
Requirements
Requirement 1
UCO must be able to support delivery of ontology resources that could arguably be independent of UCO conceptually. In particular, SHACL shapes for an imported, non-SHACL ontology must be integrable with UCO ontology data for the sake of SHACL validation.
Requirement 2
Resources that are developed in the separable scope of one ontology should be maintained in a location that makes clear the scope. Further, such a location should be visibly consistent within UCO's file storage structure and its IRI scheme.
Risk / Benefit analysis
Benefits
Risks
Competencies demonstrated
Competency 1
A proposal (coming in a few moments) will bring forward integration of the Collections Ontology (CO) with UCO classes pertaining to ordered lists. CO is implemented as an OWL2 DL ontology, and predates SHACL. To validate CO data, UCO would need to develop SHACL shapes scoped to CO concepts.
(Several future proposals are considering incorporating the Semantic Sensor Network ontology, which also does not yet implement SHACL. So, CO will not be the only need to make organizational space available.)
Competency Question 1.1
Under what directory would UCO's development of CO concept review occur?
Result 1.1
Reviewing the directory structure,
ontology/*
shows Turtle definition files per ontology.ontology/uco
would house the current UCO Turtle files.ontology/co
would house new Turtle files for the Collections Ontology.Competency Question 1.2
From what IRI base would CO resources be provided?
Result 1.2
The IRI base of CO SHACL shapes would be
https://ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org/co
. This permits delivery of UCO shapes that review usage of CO concepts. E.g., a shape that checks conformance of theco:size
property, aowl:DatatypeProperty
with rangexsd:nonNegativeInteger
, could be this:That standalone shape would be retrievable from the IRI
https://ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org/co/size-subjects-shape
. While the shape pertains to the concept defined in the Collections Ontology namespace, UCO handles delivery of the SHACL validation shape.(Please limit review of this shape in this proposal to the delivery IRIs.)
Solution suggestion
/ontology/
to be under/ontology/uco/
. E.g./ontology/action/action.ttl
would become/ontology/uco/action/action.ttl
.Coordination
develop
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: