Closed sebbader closed 3 years ago
I personally do not require to keep this line. @HaydarAk what is your opinion on this?
The IM evolved a bit over the last years and is now less dependent on the vocabulary of the idsm
namespace.
For the next major version bump, we can compress the idsm
vocabulary and therefore remove some properties we dont need anymore. The idsm:example
could be part of that list. I dont see any particular reason to use idsm:example
over skos:example
or so if we want to document some kind of examples in the IM.
👍 for the removal of the idsm:
namespace. Replacing idsm:example
with skos:example
will not solve the error as long as the rdfs:range rdf:PlainLiteral
statement stays. Can we delete that one nevertheless?
(By the way, I am still not sure why the rdf:PlainLiteral results in an inconsistent ontology. Most likely Pellet is not aware of some definitions. Isn't "some-dateTimeStampLiteral"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp a rdf:PlainLiteral ?)
See #415
Solved with #415
Hi! Just tried the Pellet reasoner on the IDS IM. Unfortunately, this line https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/InformationModel/blob/218f952b6fad542fc786bb3cab1461c68fd5de46/metamodel/Annotation.ttl#L44 (
idsm:example [...] rdfs:range rdf:PlainLiteral;
) results in an inconsistent model. Is there a good reason to keep it?