Open mbrush opened 8 years ago
This is related to fact that, because we define a-box relationships between classes punned as individuals in the data, the same connection between concept A and concept B can get encoded in the t-box as class axioms linking A and B in an ontology file, and again in the a-box as direct OP assertion axioms linking A and B. We do this to facilitate rdf/graph based queries (where no have DL reasoning, and don't want to query across nesting and reifications of owl representation in rdf - but it creates potential for knowledge to be duplicated and inconsistent across t-box vs abox representations.
Anywho, just listing these as examples to help consider implications of the punning approach and duplication of knowledge in the a-box and t-box.
We utilize a fair amount of punning to simplify our data model and use existing ontologies as CVs for describing our data. The most common example of this is punning gene class IRIs in linking to them from variants/alleles of the gene, e.g.:
We also commonly pun classes of phenotypes, taxons, evidence codes, developmental stages, zygosity types, etc. I'd like to review and /or establish some best practices here to be sure to use this practice correctly, coherently, consistently. A couple specific question posed below: