Skip to content

Add owl:Thing assertions to duration units. Fixes #775. #783

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Add owl:Thing assertions to duration units. Fixes #775. #783

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

dylan-sa
Copy link
Contributor

@dylan-sa dylan-sa commented Dec 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #775.

@dylan-sa dylan-sa requested a review from rjyounes December 8, 2022 22:56
@dylan-sa dylan-sa added effort: small Requires less than one day to complete impact: patch No new functionality or changes in human-readable semantics (e.g,. fixing a typo in an annotation) labels Dec 8, 2022
rjyounes
rjyounes reviewed Dec 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@rjyounes rjyounes left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not convinced this is the right solution. We shouldn't have to add owl:Thing assertions to our named individuals. I propose one or both of the following solutions:

  • Modify onto_tool: see issue #105. The problem here is we will run the new version of rdf-toolkit.jar after it's debugged, which allows us to remove NamedIndividual assertions during serialization. At that point, adding owl:NamedIndividual to the list of type assertions in onto_tool strict will no longer solve the problem. However, the second change proposed in this issue will still apply.
  • Modify our bundle.yaml file to use all rather than strict. Are there any negative consequences to doing so?

@dylan-sa
Copy link
Contributor Author

dylan-sa commented Dec 9, 2022

I offer this as a quick fix, but that is a fair point about using all rather than strict. I agree that using all would be the better option in the long term, assuming all of the NamedIndividual and Thing assertions are removed.

@rjyounes
Copy link
Collaborator

rjyounes commented Dec 9, 2022

I don't think we need a quick fix, so I'm closing this.

@rjyounes rjyounes closed this Dec 9, 2022
@rjyounes rjyounes deleted the issue-775-definedBy-assertions branch December 9, 2022 20:48
@Jamie-SA Jamie-SA mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2023
Closed
@Jamie-SA Jamie-SA mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2023
Closed
@rjyounes rjyounes requested review from rjyounes and removed request for rjyounes July 13, 2023 20:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rjyounes rjyounes rjyounes left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
effort: small Requires less than one day to complete impact: patch No new functionality or changes in human-readable semantics (e.g,. fixing a typo in an annotation)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 terms missing rdfs:isDefinedBy triples
2 participants
@dylan-sa @rjyounes