Closed rue-a closed 2 years ago
Very good point. I will first change all "parent" things to "broader" things and secondly also include the definition (and did already include parent https://github.com/luckinet/ontologics/commit/5a13cc346caea5811c333009a08dc554095444fb https://github.com/luckinet/ontologics/commit/f7371ced999b96d6a63d2d54de6173176079a5e1) into the @classes
table .
I guess the way these are called should then be handled in the scope of issue https://github.com/luckinet/ontologics/issues/3
The classes of the ontology should have not only an ID (currently this is a descriptive string), but also a label and a definition. From my point of view, the ID can still be the descriptive string, which would only require to add the label and the definition properties. Another option would be to also generate IDs (as for concepts), but change the separator symbol (e.g. to
_
).Variant 1:
new_class(class = "landcover", label = "Landcover", definition = "A good definition of Landcover", parent = NA, ontology = lulc)
new_class(class = "land-use", label = "LandUse", definition = "A good definition of Land-Use", parent = "landcover", ontology = lulc)
=>
Variant 2:
new_class(label = "Landcover", definition = "A good definition of Landcover", parent = NA, ontology = lulc)
new_class(label = "LandUse", definition = "A good definition of Land-Use", parent = _01, ontology = lulc)
=>
Another note: parent could also be interpreted as SKOS:broader