search

i40-Tools / I40KG

Contains the development for the Industry 4.0 standards knowledge graph (I40KG). Its current collaborative development is driven by VoCol - http://vocol.iais.fraunhofer.de/sto/
64 stars 24 forks source link

No untyped individuals #42

Closed igrangel closed 5 years ago

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Unless there is a specific reason, there should not exist individuals which type is only owl:NamedIndividual as in this example. The individuals should always contain an rdf:type declaring which class they belong.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

Individuals of this kind have been removed. Please have a look and we can close the issue.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

image No, we can´t see the image for yourself how many untyped individuals are.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

Please have a look at this. Let me know if this is not the way. Places and Country

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

I need to understand sto:hasClassification and sto:StandardClassification to deal with some of these instances. What is the source of this information? I am a little hesitant to work on things that I don't understand well since I am not the original author of these things.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

The way you did it with Places and Countries is the right way. Please have a look at this example regarding sto:hasClassification and let me know if you understand this. image

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Please have a look at this commit. Use protégé and texteditors at the same time.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

I understand the relationships and instance examples but I don't have necessary information to define these instances. For example. What is CommunicationSubModel . I tried to look at related content in the file but I don't know how to classify it.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

I am using protégé and sublime text editor parallely.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Very valid question. Please have a look at this document on page 19. Second, this the rami:CommunicationSubModel belongs to the rami ontology, thus it should be type of some of the rami classes.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

What is sto:Concern. Source Please

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

Also why are we redefining sto:Configuration and using rami:Configuration. Its a source of confusion I think. Better to maintain one consistently.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Yes, this is a mistake, there should only exist rami:Configuration.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

So, same applies to sto:Communication, sto:ConditionMonitoring ?

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Please, when you do a link, press the key Y, otherwise, the link is lost.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

I understand the problem but did not understand when to press the Y.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

When you link to the code in Github, e.g., as in sto:Communication above. It creates a unique link.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Like here sto:Communication.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

sto:Communication. I have tried to do the same but I think the link does not work if there are modifications done to the file.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

Now it is correct. It does not matter if there are modifications. Well, in this case, sto:Communication is an instance of rami:AdministrationShellSubModel, so yes, it should be renamed to rami:Communication.

igrangel commented 5 years ago

image These few individuals are still without class. Please have a look to close this issue.

PriyankaNanjappa commented 5 years ago

All of the individuals are looked into and sorted.