search

iassouroko / AMontology

NIST's OWL ontology of additive manufacturing
8 stars 2 forks source link

These aren't disjoint processes? #2

Open pdenno opened 9 years ago

pdenno commented 9 years ago

Felipe's pull request includes [ rdf:type owl:AllDisjointClasses ;

I thought that was OK. Nothing that is MaterialJetting can also be SheetLamination etc. or am I wrong about that?

iassouroko commented 9 years ago

Hi Peter, Actually there was an additional category (LaserSolidForming) that shouldn’t be there, since Direct Energy Deposition is the same thing as LSF.

-Ibrahim From: Peter Denno [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:39 PM To: usnistgov/AMontology AMontology@noreply.github.com Subject: [AMontology] These aren't disjoint processes? (#2)

Felipe's pull request includes [ rdf:type owl:AllDisjointClasses ;

I thought that was OK. Nothing that is MaterialJetting can also be SheetLamination etc. or am I wrong about that?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/usnistgov/AMontology/issues/2.

pdenno commented 9 years ago

(My original comment doesn't show that these are being removed by the pull request. That is in fact what it is doing).

Regarding Ibrahim's comment: OK, so you got rid of LaserSolidForming, but my question is about the disjointedness of all of them. Shouldn't the rest of this statement (minus LaserSolidForming) remain in the ontology?

lopezfelipe commented 9 years ago

Yes, I was telling Ibrahim that LSF was not included in the ASMT classification of AM processes because it is DED. The different name is an attempt by some Chinese researchers to bypass copyright laws for DED processes.

All of the presented categories are disjoint: No process can fall into more than one category.

iassouroko commented 9 years ago

Yes actually you are right, the disjointedness between all the other concepts has been erased when you deleted the concept LSF. I will redefine the disjointedness.

Ibrahim

From: Peter Denno [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:57 PM To: usnistgov/AMontology AMontology@noreply.github.com Cc: Assouroko, Ibrahim ibrahim.assouroko@nist.gov Subject: Re: [AMontology] These aren't disjoint processes? (#2)

(My original comment doesn't show that these are being removed by the pull request. That is in fact what it is doing).

Regarding Ibrahim's comment: OK, so you got rid of LaserSolidForming, but my question is about the disjointedness of all of them. Shouldn't the rest of this statement (minus LaserSolidForming) remain in the ontology?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/usnistgov/AMontology/issues/2#issuecomment-144830320.

lopezfelipe commented 9 years ago

Oops. My bad.

iassouroko commented 9 years ago

No problem Felipe ☺! Next time we will double check before moving forward. Ibrahim

From: Felipe Lopez [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 4:06 PM To: usnistgov/AMontology AMontology@noreply.github.com Cc: Assouroko, Ibrahim ibrahim.assouroko@nist.gov Subject: Re: [AMontology] These aren't disjoint processes? (#2)

Oops. My bad.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/usnistgov/AMontology/issues/2#issuecomment-144833042.