-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
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
New ROBOT report checks for problematic assertions about built-ins #835
Comments
I think we'd want to go further. Basic annotation metadata e.g. IAO properties shouldn't be redefined what about undeclared types? warning? is this where having a closed world schema (over the RDF, not the OWL interpretation) can help? E.g. shex or linkml I guess just adding to sparql queries is good for now, but we may want to have a mode to query over the direct RDF graph, as the OWLAPI can introduce things that mask the original problems We could also have a punning warning. We can permit punning but often it is unintentional and a sign something has gone wrong. |
The owl2dl profile validator in the OWL API has a lot of these implemented very efficiently; so we could look there. As for the more general shex question: yeah, we need that.. But Maybe that is best addressed in an OMO ticket first - to get some community agreement. |
We have
|
Hmm.. Maybe because its annotations and OWL 2 profiles only prescribe stuff on the logical axioms.. some check like SELECT ?s ?o ?p Would probably go some way towards catching the worst instances of the "illegal use of built in signature" problem? |
Ok. Where do we get a list of built-ins? |
But does not cover owl language, will keep looking. |
maybe everything in the owl, rdf, rdfs, skos namespaces? |
@zhengj2007 found this list of ontologies asserting http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/OBIB?iri=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns%23type
|
! |
I would like to progress on this! I suggest to introduce at least a |
I implemented a very conservative first solution here, but only covering rdf:type. The problem with the rest is that its just too annoying to run these tests on merged ontologies, where IAO is, say merged in, and then you just see the IAO definitions. The rdf:type is a clear violation that should be avoided at all costs. We can add concrete other predicates to the check, but I would restrict this for now to language-internal stuff, rather than to the much larger use case of: don't redefine stuff from upper ontologies. This merrits a hole other approach. |
In #833 we found a case where
rdf:type
was being asserted to be an OWL Annotation Property. This can lead to bad behaviour in any OWL processing tool. I don't want ROBOT to fail in that case, but we should let users know that this could be a problem.So I think we should add a ROBOT report check for this sort of thing.
But beyond this specific case, I'm not sure what to check. Suggestions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: