inconsistent ontology: isc2020.ttl TM_CoordinateSystem

[smrgeoinfo]

TM_CoordinateSystem is defined to have interval exactly 1 rdfs:Literal, and interval only xsd:string. I don't see a triple stating that xsd:string is subclass of rdfs:literal.

iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem interval exactly 1 rdfs:Literal; interval only xsd:string;

when I run the Hermit reasoner in Protege on isc2020.ttl, it reports ontology is inconsistent. First reasons reported are because of multiple intervals defined on a TM_Coordinate system:

http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/cgi/geologicage/bp a iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "31556925.445s" ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "365.24219265d" ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "a" ; ...

[dr-shorthair]

I don't see a triple stating that xsd:string is subclass of rdfs:literal.

I believe this follows automatically from

• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_literal
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_xmlliteral
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral

[dr-shorthair]

First reasons reported are because of multiple intervals defined on a TM_Coordinate system:

http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/cgi/geologicage/bp a iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "31556925.445s" ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "365.24219265d" ; iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval "a" ; ...

Looks like I got a bit carried away there. However, the constraint could be interpreted as entailing that the three iso-trs:TM_CoordinateSystem.interval triples are equivalent or identical, which is true. Perhaps Hermit is wrong in reporting this as an inconsistency?

However, easy enough to remove the seconds and days variants.

[dr-shorthair]

(Though TBQH I'd be happier to define an alternative representation of temporal coordinate reference system. The ISO 19150 conversion of UML to OWL is a bit creaky.)

[dr-shorthair]

Should be fixed now.