Cardinalities of schema to ontology implementation

[meganrwong]

There are challenges with knowing which (if any) cardinality changes should be made in line with schema changes.

[meganrwong]

We have made the decision not to worry about changing the non-manditory to mandatory within the ontology in response to cardinalities enforced in schema implementation phase1

For example, we will not make pore diameter in ontology mandatory in ontology in response to it being made mandatory in the schema. Abundance as mandatory in ontology will remain so.

[meganrwong]

min 0 to 0..1 in ontology? - eg https://github.com/ANZSoilData/def-au-schema-json/issues/107

Legit if the property doesn’t vary. E.g. abundance. There’s only one abundance, there might be multiple estimates of abundance, but conceptually there only one value.

[meganrwong]

min 0 to 0..1 in ontology? - eg ANZSoilData/def-au-schema-json#107

Legit if the property doesn’t vary. E.g. abundance. There’s only one abundance, there might be multiple estimates of abundance, but conceptually there only one value.

'Logic behind schema cardinality is as much about implementation as the domain' So - in most if not all cases will not change ontology from 0..* to Max 1

[meganrwong]

Cardinalities in ontology will be changed are where there is a clash between ontology saying something is manditory, and the schema saying it is not.

[meganrwong]

Cardinalities in ontology will be changed where max 1 is defined in ontology, but is ..* (optional) in schema

[meganrwong]

Will be changed when manditory in schema, but 'exactly 1' in ontology - changed to 0..1 (max 1)