Add tautologies & structural-tautologies axiom selectors #579
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 12 commits
September 23, 2019 10:51
…'--base' to global options
matentzn
reviewed
Oct 17, 2019
robot-core/src/main/java/org/obolibrary/robot/ReasonOperation.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
beckyjackson
changed the title
beckyjackson
changed the title
jamesaoverton
changed the title
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #562
New axiom selectors:
tautologies: all axioms that are always true; these would be entailed in an empty ontology. WARNING: this may remove more axioms than desired.structural-tautologies: all axioms that match a set of tautological patterns (e.g.,X SubClassOf owl:Thing,owl:Nothing SubClassOf X,X SubClassOf X)The implementation uses features from #560
Also fixes an issue with the extract integration tests. The mitochondrion-full file was incorrect, but we weren't catching it because the example didn't point to the results file. I did a spot check on it and this version looks correct. I can move this to a different PR if that's easier to review.
This relies on #570 to prevent merge conflicts, but if we decide to take a different approach there I can update it.