Term from Termit not fully represented in Ontographer

datagov-cz / ontoGrapher

Tento repozitář je udržován v rámci projektu OPZ č. CZ.03.4.74/0.0/0.0/15_025/0013983.

Mozilla Public License 2.0

2 stars 2 forks source link

Term from Termit not fully represented in Ontographer #81

Closed martinnec closed 4 years ago

martinnec commented 4 years ago

I created a new term in Termit:

I openned the workspace in Ontographer and I cannot see its prototype (shall be object type) and its connection to its broader type (člověk)

On this screenshot, you can see the emty list of stereotypes (I expected the object type here)

And here the empty list of connections (I would expect specialization of člověk here)

bindeali commented 4 years ago

This issue is related to #86, so I will proceed the same way (ask about Termit behaviour, then report back).

bindeali commented 4 years ago

This is because ufo/object-type is not loaded in ontoGrapher's default configuration, and therefore it is not recognized (the object-type used is from Z-SGoV, I believe). As for the subclassing issue, the relation that Termit uses is skos:broader, whereas the relation that ontoGrapher uses is rdfs:subClassOf as per #54.

We have had discussions previously on the proper behaviour in a situation where an unrecognized term is referenced (mainly whether to ignore it or show it in a read-only state, for example), so this is something we are definitely thinking of, but haven't yet decided. I'll discuss with others whether inclusion of skos:broader relationships makes sense (In my opinion, it does) and if so, how should it be done. If we decide on anything concrete, I will make sure to issue relevant enhancement tickets.

psiotwo commented 4 years ago

TermIt is updated to contain correct prototypes, so this is fixed.

As for the subclassing issue: I don't think we should support skos:broader as a rdfs:subClassOf in ontographer:

skos:broader is a general vague link, one interpretation of which might be rdfs:subClassOf, but also rdf:type or ufo:isPartOf for example. So while I would not be against showing the hierarchy of terms in the left panel of ontographer, I don't think it would be consistent to show the SKOS links in the model. SKOS and UFO are disjoint and we should keep it IMO.

martinnec commented 4 years ago

I checked the behaviour and its seems fixed.

psiotwo commented 4 years ago

Closing, fixed.