Complex axioms being parsed incorrectly?

[pbuttigieg]

Greetings Ontobee team!

The equivalence axiom on ENVO's chthonian planet appears to have been misparsed.

This is what it looks like in Protégé:

And this is what it looks like on Ontobee:

Is this a bug?

[cmungall]

Hi @pbuttigieg - sorry it looks like my initial estimation was incorrect. While ontobee is a little too liberal with parenthesization, the rendering is valid.

This is the OWL:

    EquivalentTo: 
        <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000800>
         and (<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001158> or (<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002354> some <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001146>))
         and (<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001000> some <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001124>)

with additional pretty-printing, ontobee shows:

planet and 
(
  (
    hydrodynamic escape or 
    (
       formed as result of some photoevaporation
    )
  )
)
and
(
    derives from some giant gas planet
)

Protege is more conservative with parentheses, and expects you to know order of precedence. Here the 'or' binds less tightly than you might expect

I'm surprised this passed the reasoner tests, it should be an unsat. You can assign an envo ticket for me to check this.

as you know I'm suspicious of unions in general. The photoevaporation aspect does not seem to be captured in the text def - logical defs that stray from text defs are a bad smell

[pbuttigieg]

Thanks @cmungall !

I'll modify to

planet
 and ('derives from' some 'giant gas planet')
 and ('formed as result of' some (photoevaporation or 'hydrodynamic escape'))

And see where that gets us. I think the textual def does match the asserted axioms, but I'll double check.