Skip to content
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

884 fix patch #889

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 19, 2021
Merged

884 fix patch #889

merged 5 commits into from
Jul 19, 2021

Conversation

matentzn
Copy link
Contributor

Two suggestions @beckyjackson :

  1. We should ignore some-obsolete subclassOf Thing. this error is so frequent, it will totally pollute the test.
  2. In an attempt to reduce spurious diffs over ROBOT report (see Report: Bind anonymous nodes to a generic label to avoid cluttering diff #873) I would suggest to avoid blank nodes in robot report.

@matentzn matentzn changed the base branch from fix844 to 884-fix July 18, 2021 15:03
@matentzn matentzn requested a review from beckyjackson July 18, 2021 15:03
@matentzn matentzn marked this pull request as draft July 18, 2021 15:07
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Something is wrong wait a moment..

@matentzn matentzn marked this pull request as ready for review July 18, 2021 15:26
@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok now

@beckyjackson
Copy link
Contributor

beckyjackson commented Jul 18, 2021

  • I think "Use in anonymous expression" should be rephrased as just "anonymous expression", since that's the entity we're referring to.

Copy link
Contributor

@beckyjackson beckyjackson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! I just see two things:

  • Remove FILTER ( ?value != oboInOwl:ObsoleteClass ) at line 32; a deprecated class should never be equivalent or disjoint with oboInOwl:ObsoleteClass, only a subclass of it
  • The anonymous expression check is duplicated. The first one should be removed, and just use the one where you're binding the string as ?entity.

@matentzn
Copy link
Contributor Author

The anonymous expression check is duplicated. The first one should be removed, and just use the one where you're binding the string as ?entity.

I wanted to increase the readability of cases where the axiom in question is a simple existential restriction; if you check the FILTER() expressions in both cases, you will find that one of these "duplicates" looks for cases were the entity is named, and then can be printed as part of the robot command.. Does this make sense?

@beckyjackson
Copy link
Contributor

beckyjackson commented Jul 19, 2021

Edit: I totally missed that one uses isBlank and the other uses !isBlank, these are different.

OK - I don't think there should be duplicates within the report because that will conflate the number of issues. Both of these return anonymous expressions, and the first one just returns a (very unhelpful) blank node ID, which won't help the user locate the usage anyway, so I think it should be removed:

{
 VALUES ?property {
   owl:someValuesFrom
   owl:allValuesFrom
 }
 ?value a owl:Class ;
        owl:deprecated true .
 ?entity ?x ?rest .
 ?rest a owl:Restriction ;
       ?property ?value .
 FILTER(!isBlank(?entity))
}
UNION
{
 VALUES ?property {
   owl:someValuesFrom   
   owl:allValuesFrom
 }
 ?value a owl:Class ;
        owl:deprecated true .
 ?e ?x ?rest .
 ?rest a owl:Restriction ;
       ?property ?value .
 FILTER(isBlank(?e))
 BIND("anonymous expression" as ?entity)
}

@beckyjackson beckyjackson merged commit 7a6d800 into 884-fix Jul 19, 2021
@beckyjackson beckyjackson deleted the 884-fix-patch branch July 19, 2021 18:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants