[BS] `bioc:Person_Relationship_Role` missing

[sennierer]

Moved the new new BS file to the data-source repo, created a PR and the automatic shacl validation shows that the new ttl is missing the bioc:Person_Relationship_Role class for the roles. Can you have a look at the report, see if that makes sense and change accordingly if it does? Btw.: improvements to the shacl constraints are obviously very welcome.

[yoge1]

I think the issue is that we don't have an ontology/definitions for roles.

In BS data we have:

<http://www.intavia.eu/bs/personproxy/3304> bioc:has_person_relation <http://www.intavia.eu/bs/personrelation/1/3304> .
<http://www.intavia.eu/bs/personrelation/1/3304> a <http://www.intavia.eu/familyreltype/parent> .

What we miss is this triple:

<http://www.intavia.eu/familyreltype/parent> rdfs:subClassOf bioc:Person_Relationship_Role

How are other datasets modeling the parent role? Do we use a shared URI for the role (if data would be perfectly harmonized, we should!)? Should we create e.g. roles.ttl that defines the roles (i.e. states rdf:type, rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:label for them)?

[sennierer]

hmm...to fulfill the shacl validation I added APIS_role rdfs:subClassOf bioc:Person_Relationship_Role triple. But you are obviously right, we should have a common class that we inherit from.

[sennierer]

And I see we already created something like that here https://github.com/InTaVia/idm-rdf/blob/main/idm-OWL/intavia_idm_classes_1.ttl ;) Should we add the triples there?

[yoge1]

Yes, I think that https://github.com/InTaVia/idm-rdf/blob/main/idm-OWL/intavia_idm_classes_1.ttl would be good for adding the role classes.

[yoge1]

@ptleskin will add the role class definitions in the file https://github.com/InTaVia/idm-rdf/blob/main/idm-OWL/intavia_idm_classes_1.ttl with a SPARQL CONSTRUCT based on used classes in IKG.

[ptleskin]

Updated https://github.com/InTaVia/idm-rdf/blob/main/idm-OWL/intavia_idm_classes_1.ttl