search

OpenC2SIM / C2SIMArtifacts

C2SIM Artifacts
MIT License
4 stars 5 forks source link

Modifications to some OWL definitions/explanations #20

Open bruno-g opened 2 years ago

bruno-g commented 2 years ago

C2SIM Problem Report / Change Request Submitter Name: Ole-martin Mevassvik and Geir Sletten Submitter Organization: FFI Date of Submission: 29 March 2022 Type (Problem Report or Change Request): Problem Report Product: C2SIM 1.0.0/1.0.1 + SMX + LOX ontologies (rdf/xml)

Reference: FFI memo "Evaluation of C2SIM for use in Army Course of Action simulation", 22 February 2022, Section 6.2, p13-14

Problem/Change Description: During the review of class descriptions in C2SIM, we found several too restrictive, contradicting their usage in C2SIM or partly incorrect. List of "sub-issues" with comments/proposals for an editorial update:

Copy of original Table 6.1 "Ontology class descriptions that should be modified." image image

jmpullen2 commented 2 years ago

These seem to be valid concerns. However, in specifying changes to deal with them, the Ontology Group should seek to retain backward compatibility to the maximum extent possible.

For example, OrganizationCode could be treated ans an alias for Affiliation.

Mark

bruno-g wrote on 6/9/22 11:35 AM:

Submitter Name: Ole-martin Mevassvik and Geir Sletten Submitter Organization: FFI

Type (Problem Report or Change Request): Problem Report Date of Submission: 29 March 2022 Product: C2SIM_SMX_LOX_v1.0.0 XML Schema generated from C2SIM 1.0.0

  • SMX + LOX ontology (rdf/xml)

Reference: FFI memo "Evaluation of C2SIM for use in Army Course of Action simulation", 22 February 2022, Section 6.2, p13-14

Problem/Change Description: During the review of class descriptions in C2SIM, we found several too restrictive, contradicting their usage in C2SIM or partly incorrect. List of "sub-issues" with comments/proposals for an editorial update:

  • Subclass AbstractOrganization of AbstractObject refers to further subclasses, which are not explicit in the ontology. o comment: Should “subclass” be replaced?
  • OrganizationCode is restricted to organizations, while some of the subclasses also seem valid for Person. Religion is hardly classified as an Organization. o comment: Use the term “Affiliation” instead?
  • Entity refers to the non-existent subclass ConcreteEntity. Inheritance from two subclasses is proposed, which seems invalid. o comment: Documentation should be updated to reflect the current ontology classes.
  • EntityType is restricted to Entity, even though APP-6 has several symbols for Task verbs. o comment: Modify definition, to remove restriction to Entity. Also, consider name change for subclasses DISEntityType and NamedEntityType.
  • Resource is specified as not being an Entity, but still uses entities as examples in the end of the explanation. o comment: Modify definition.
  • C2SIMHeader o comment: The definition seems to be incomplete.
  • Relationship o comment: If “entity” implies the class “Entity”, the subclasses of Relationship contradict the explanation of usage.

Copy of original Table 6.1 "Ontology class descriptions that should be modified." image https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38116830/172812673-e5dccebe-b06f-4b00-a613-6e309e8d2705.png image https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38116830/172812753-7e25e109-0757-4256-b753-75cfea277575.png

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpenC2SIM/C2SIMArtifacts/issues/20, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABN7HSMUHBP2CRQ6QLGVRS3VOG3H3ANCNFSM5YJM335A. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

MiJoDe commented 1 year ago

The first report states, that AbstractOrganization has subclasses in the schema, which are not represented in the ontology. This does not seem to be true: Neither the ontology or the schema have subclasses, besides regular restrictions: It is strange though, that die class AbstractObject is mentioned again as a group element.

The second problem states, that the subclasses of OrganizationCode are restricted to organizations exclusively, although they would fit persons as well. Furthermore, religions, which are seen as organizations because of ReligionCode, are also not defined as organizations. It is suggested, to substitute OrganizationCode with Affiliation. It is true, that the word organization is used in a wide sense when religions are included. It is not fundamentally wrong though. More important is to recognize, that OrganizationCode is not restricted to organization but rather has no restrictions at all. The subclasses are defined by instances, meaning there is no error in a logical sense. A change in the taxonomy is therefore not supported.

The third problem states, that Entity points to a non-existing subclass ConcreteEntit and inherits from two classes which is not seen as valid. Both statements were not found to be true.

The fourth problem states, that EntityType is restricted to Entity. This was also not found to be true.

The fifth problem states, that the comment defines the class Resource as something, which is not an entity, but lists entities as examples. This statement is true and supported.

The sixth problem claims, that the definition of C2SIMHeader is incomplete, without specifying what is supposed to be missing. The statement can not be examined without further information.

The last problem is concerning the documentation of Relationship. It is said, that Relationship, in it's description, points to Entity, the subclasses contradict this statement though. It is suggested to change the documentation of relationship.