Closed balhoff closed 10 months ago
Thanks for this @balhoff. Can we in the future agree that all PRs require review before being merged? There are a lot of dependencies on CDAO (for good or bad).
@hlapp, absolutely, sorry about that. I wasn't sure there were others paying attention here. Please let me know if you see anything to reconsider in this PR.
I think the two non-trivial changes here are (a) changing the identifier (IRI) of the property under which to find a definition, and (b) re-axiomatizing the has
property.
Change (a) could throw off some custom-built UI, but I don't know about any that are used in the context of CDAO. So I think this should nonetheless be inconsequential at the practical level.
Change (b) changes (at least potentially) reasoning results, so I have more reservations about it. Is this change necessary for some use-case, or motivated by other reasons? Can there be a public feedback period? So in short, if it's reasonably possible to turn this into its own issue where a rationale is given and potential consequences outlined, with an associated PR, that'd be ideal. But if there's already dependency on that change somewhere, I guess we can also leave the change in place, Though even in that case, it'd still be good to have this change documented and referenceable in an issue for later.
@hlapp there should not be any reasoning changes, since CDAO_0000194 and CDAO_0000190 have been previously asserted as equivalent properties (and still are). Since I marked CDAO_0000194 as deprecated, I wanted to make sure all usages in axioms were in terms of CDAO_0000190 rather than CDAO_0000194. I can turn this into an issue.