Sanity checks before releasing the ontology

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

What are the sanity checks we want the ontology to pass before we release a new version ?

I can think of:

valid prefixes from prefix.cc
ontology IRI and metadata:
- versionIRI, license, contributors, etc.
terms IRIs and metadata:
- labels, comments,
- links to issues,
ontology in the OWL 2 DL profile
ontology consistant
every class can be instantiatedwithout making the ontology inconsistant
there exists some example turtle files somewhere in the repository that illustrate how each class and relation is expected to be used

FabienGandon commented 2 years ago

I would separate the required checks from the nice to have

Required:
- validated RDF syntax
- corresponding milestone 100% covered
- valid base and metadata (versionIRI, license, contributors, etc.)
- valid prefix and namespace declaration on prefix.cc
- at least on label and comment in English for each notion defined
- target OWL profile checked (e.g. OWL DL)
- OWL validation of the ontology
Nice to have
- links to scenarios and competency questions
- links to issues
- turtle examples of the use of the ontology

DrLeturc commented 2 years ago

For the V1, we are going to use manually a tool for OWL profile checking and checking consistency of the ontology. We leave the automation for the V2.

DrLeturc commented 2 years ago

We (with Remi Ceres) used Corese API and here is the conclusion. Let us notice that since it was a recent addition to Corese, we cannot download it from corese.inria.fr but only from the Github, and there is no documentation + some Exceptions have been generated.

core.ttl is supported by OWL_RL

core.ttl is not supported by OWL_QL

<https://purl.org/hmas/core#transitivelyContains> a owl:ObjectProperty ;
a owl:TransitiveProperty ;
dc:source <https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/8#issuecomment-1025991719> ;
rdfs:comment "Links all the resources that are logically contained in a workspaces."@en ;
rdfs:domain <https://purl.org/hmas/core#Workspace> ;
rdfs:label "transitivelyContains"@en ;
rdfs:range rdfs:Resource ;
rdfs:seeAlso <https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/18> ;
rdfs:seeAlso <https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/39> ;
owl:inverseOf <https://purl.org/hmas/core#isTransitivelyContainedIn>

core.ttl is not supported by OWL_EL

<https://purl.org/hmas/core#hasProfile> a owl:AsymmetricProperty ;
  a owl:ObjectProperty ;
  rdfs:comment "A relation that links a resource to its profile."@en ;
  rdfs:label "has profile"@en ;
  rdfs:range <https://purl.org/hmas/core#ResourceProfile> ;
  owl:inverseOf <https://purl.org/hmas/core#isProfileOf>

core.ttl is (?not?) supported by OWL_TC (OWL 1 DL?) (I got an exception)

java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index 0 out of bounds for length 0
 at java.base/jdk.internal.util.Preconditions.outOfBounds(Preconditions.java:64)
 at java.base/jdk.internal.util.Preconditions.outOfBoundsCheckIndex(Preconditions.java:70)
 at java.base/jdk.internal.util.Preconditions.checkIndex(Preconditions.java:248)
 at java.base/java.util.Objects.checkIndex(Objects.java:372)
(...)

Finally, I checked the consistency of the core ontology and it is consistent according to Protégé.

DrLeturc commented 2 years ago

If I don't do any mistake, OWL 2 RL has the following complexity characteristics :

Taxonomic complexity is PTIME-complete ;
Data complexity is PTIME-complete ;
Conjunctive Query Answering complexity is NP-complete .

Is it an acceptable OWL profile ?

DrLeturc commented 2 years ago

All the items have been checked expect for :

  * links to scenarios and competency questions
  * links to issues
  * turtle examples of the use of the ontology

These last items are carried over to the next version.

I did a PR where I added in the comments of the ontology, the OWL Profile. I'll close this issue when the PR will be approved by all the members.

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

I we run the OntOlogy Pitfalls Scanner OOPS!, this is what we get:

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties.4 cases | Important Important Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.

This pitfall appears in the following elements:
Tip: Solving this pitfall may lead to new results for other pitfalls and suggestions. We encourage you to solve all cases when needed and see what else you can get from OOPS! Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared.1 case | Minor Minor This pitfall appears when any relationship (except for those that are defined as symmetric properties using owl:SymmetricProperty) does not have an inverse relationship (owl:inverseOf) defined within the ontology.
This pitfall appears in the following elements:
- https://purl.org/hmas/core#exposesSignifier Results for P29: Defining wrong transitive relationships.2 cases | Critical Critical A relationship is defined as transitive, using owl:TransitiveProperty, when the relationship is not necessarily transitive.
This pitfall appears in the following elements:
- https://purl.org/hmas/core#transitivelyContains
- https://purl.org/hmas/core#isTransitivelyContainedIn Results for P34: Untyped class.1 case | Important Important An ontology element is used as a class without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives owl:Class or rdfs:Class. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].
This pitfall appears in the following elements:
- http://schema.org/Person Results for P36: URI contains file extension.ontology* | Minor Minor This pitfall occurs if file extensions such as ".owl", ".rdf", ".ttl", ".n3" and ".rdfxml" are included in an ontology URI. This pitfall is related with the recommendations provided in [9].
This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking.1 case | Critical Critical It refers to reusing or referring to terms from another namespace that are not defined in such namespace. This is an undesirable situation as no information can be retrieved when looking up those undefined terms. This pitfall is related to the Linked Data publishing guidelines provided in [11]: "Only define new terms in a namespace that you control" and to the guidelines provided in [5].

This pitfall appears in the following elements:
- http://creativecommons.org/ns#license
For detecting this pitfall we rely on TripleChecker. See more results at TripleChecker website. Up to now this pitfall is only available for the "Scanner by URI" option.

DrLeturc commented 1 year ago

After discussion at the heartbeat meeting on 16 June 2023, we decided to close this issue because it has been done.

HyperAgents / hmas

Sanity checks before releasing the ontology #84