dr-shorthair
commented
4 years ago Here's the key parts of the thread from GeoscienceAustralia/geosciml.org#3
dr-shorthair commented on 14 Aug 2019 A lot of relationships have not been included explicitly.
isc:Wuchiapingian time:intervalMetBy isc:Capitanian . is implied by the inverse relationship
isc:Capitanian time:intervalMeets isc:Wuchiapingian . which is present in the data. However, I have found a different error. Currently
isc:Guadalupian time:intervalContains isc:Capitanian . which should actually be
isc:Guadalupian time:intervalEndedBy isc:Capitanian . Overall there are a lot of relationships that are not included. They could be added by running a whole lot of rules such as
'if A is met by B, and B is ended by C, then A is met by C' 'if D and E have the same end, and the beginning of E is after the beginning of D then E ends D' ... etc
These could be implemented as SPARQL CONSTRUCT or INSERT queries, but have not been designed yet. @hmuniz would you be interested in working through some of these?
@arademaker
arademaker commented on 7 Sep 2019 • Hi @dr-shorthair , interesting suggestions. I can talk to my students to see how can we collaborate. We have recently wrote about an implementation of the same Ontology in SUMO.
Extending SUMO to Geological Times - Alexandre Tessarollo, Henrique Muniz, Alexandre Rademaker and Adam Pease
The question is if it makes sense to add explicitly the relations that could be inferred by the ontologies declarations. For instance, TIME ontology (https://www.w3.org/2006/time#) already has the definition:
:intervalMeets rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ; rdfs:domain :ProperInterval ; rdfs:label "interval meets"@en ; rdfs:range :ProperInterval ; owl:inverseOf :intervalMetBy ;
arademaker commented on 7 Sep 2019 But the most important thing is that if you change the value of time:numericPosition of the BaseAlbianTime to, let us say, 200, the reasoner will not sign any problem! This makes the model more vulnerable for inconsistencies.
Contributor smrgeoinfo commented on 3 Dec 2019 • Off hand it seems that these kind of validation criteria could be set up with SWRL rules. It's not clear to me that they can be implemented with OWL constraints. Something like: if (isc:x is time:intervalMetBy isc:y) then (isc:x/time:hasBeginning//time:numericPosition) > (isc:y/time:hasBeginning//time:numericPosition).
specific example: if (isc:Roadian is time:intervalMetBy isc:Wordian) then (isc:Wordian/time:hasBeginning isc:BaseWordian//time:numericPosition) > (isc:Rodian/time:hasBeginning/isc:BaseRodian//time:numericPosition), as suggested above
I'll start a new issue on adding such validation rules. See #7
And here's the key parts of the thread from GeoscienceAustralia/geosciml.org#7
smrgeoinfo commented on 3 Dec 2019 See discussion at #3 (comment) and #3 (comment)
example (informal syntax...): _if (isc:x is time:intervalMetBy isc:y) then (isc:x/time:hasBeginning//time:numericPosition) > (isc:y/time:hasBeginning//time:numericPosition).
These kind of rules will ramify because of all the temporal relations, and the challenge is to determine a minimal set of rules that will maintain consistency in the temporal topology, and the best approach to implementing them...
@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo mentioned this issue on 3 Dec 2019 Wuchiapingian definition #3 Open @arademaker
arademaker commented on 3 Dec 2019 We have recently published a paper discussing this issue regarding the expressivity of OWL for encoding constraints. It is only these properties that are poorly axiomatized in OWL, many relations and concepts are just symbols in OWL. For instance, no axiom impost the relation between the concepts/relations from time vocabulary with the SKOS vocabulary.
More at http://arademaker.github.io/bibliography/ontobras-2019.html
BTW, the use of SWRL+OWL could be interesting but it would impose one more format for keeping in sync. Shapes Vocabulary is another alternative https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/.
@dr-shorthair
Collaborator dr-shorthair commented on 3 Dec 2019 There is lots that cannot be expressed in OWL. The set of rules in the underlying OWL-Time are only expressed in text - e.g. If a proper interval T1 is intervalContains another proper interval T2, then the beginning of T1 is before the beginning of T2, and the end of T1 is after the end of T2.
There are many ways that SHACL might be used to test this (true/false) or SPARQL might be used to CONSTRUCT the consequential relations, but that did not get done yet.
@alexandretessarollo
alexandretessarollo commented on 5 Dec 2019 We can surely add some validations to check for inner [in]consistencies - as @arademaker put it, we recently published a paper doing so by extending SUMO: https://github.com/ontologyportal/sumo/blob/master/GeochronologicTimes.kif
However, we could take one step further and ponder on ways to check for correctness against the official version. Take the Asselian Age, ranging from 298.9+/-0.15 to 293.52+/-0.17: who’s to say those numbers and spelling are correct?
That itself raises another question: what is the official/canonical reference for the Geo Times? The ISC links to different files - pdf and jpg for humans, and many more machine readable. Should one of such files disagree from the others, which should we consider the right one?
@dr-shorthair
Collaborator dr-shorthair commented on 6 Dec 2019 what is the official/canonical reference for the Geo Times? The ISC links to different files - pdf and jpg for humans, and many more machine readable. Should one of such files disagree from the others, which should we consider the right one?
I think the ICS would say that the journal papers for each of the boundaries are the only real point of truth. We did reach out to them early in the piece to propose some kind of syndication or feed, but they were uninterested at the time. What you see at present is a 'best effort' with a lot of manual processing - hence the occasional errors. Your validation assistance is much appreciated.
See https://github.com/GeoscienceAustralia/geosciml.org/issues/7
Adding this issue here since the ontology now will be maintained here.