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

Fix creation of equivalent class axioms from template #973

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 9, 2022

Conversation

beckyjackson
Copy link
Contributor

@beckyjackson beckyjackson commented Feb 24, 2022

  • docs/ have been added/updated
  • tests have been added/updated
  • mvn verify says all tests pass
  • mvn site says all JavaDocs correct
  • CHANGELOG.md has been updated

Currently, template creates an intersection for all equivalent class assertions, even if there is only one equivalent expression. Intersections should only be used for 2+ expressions. See: obi-ontology/obi#1500

@beckyjackson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note the difference between using EC and using C with an "equivalent" class type, from the docs:

  • EC %: the class will be asserted to be an equivalent class of the intersection of all EC class expressions in a row
  • equivalent: values of all C columns will be taken as an intersection and asserted to be an equivalent class

This is maintained in this PR (hence the new legacy-template.owl which keeps the intersection), but a single equivalent expression will still never be an intersection. This is to maintain backwards compatibility so users don't see any unexpected changes in their axioms. Essentially, using EC will create a single equivalent axiom whereas using C will create equivalencies between multiple expressions.

This shows up the same in Protege, but the axioms look a bit different in OWL.

@jamesaoverton jamesaoverton added this to the 1.8.4 milestone Jun 6, 2022
@jamesaoverton jamesaoverton merged commit 3c796f8 into master Jun 9, 2022
@jamesaoverton jamesaoverton deleted the eq-template-fix branch June 9, 2022 14:36
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