updated bot:hasSubElement definition in EN and NL

[mathib]

updated bot:hasSubElement definition in English and Dutch according to https://github.com/w3c-lbd-cg/bot/issues/47 as discussed at LDAC2019. Other languages still have to be updated

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Please comment outdated comments in other languages. Please commit to your branch

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Thanks at @mathib for providing the changes.

In general, it would be interesting to evaluate how to maintain (multi-language) literals in ontologies? I was thinking if similar to owl:deprecated something could be used, which, is only intended for IRIs.

SKOS provides the prefLabel to indicate a preferred label in a language. historyNote is for "A note about the past state/use/meaning of a concept."(!). Maybe a starting point?

Would be great to receive input regarding the maintenance of literals in ontologies by ontology experts. Potentially, @mariapoveda or @rgcmme can share an opinion?

Best

[rgcmme]

There are no specific guidelines for maintaining literals or annotation properties.

The main fact is whether you are changing the concept meaning itself when defining the new label, or the change in the label does not affect the concept itself (e.g., "fixing a typo").

In the first case, you are changing the concept itself, so a new term is created and you can use the OWL properties.

In the second case, you can use the skos:note or one of its subproperties. You could use skos:historyNote, but I don't see a change in a label as a "significant change to the meaning or the form of a concept". Maybe it could be more a skos:changeNote.

However, I don't know if it would be a good practice to document these fine-grained changes in an ontology.

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Thanks Raul for sharing your opinion!

I think the patterns was: We renamed an existing object property and the human readable label had to be refined to reflect the actual meaning.

Hence, we should consider the following:

1. Introduce refined labels as done in afeb8407d3e5700e24aaf734a2baeeea982f36ef
2. Add new translations of refined labels
3. Add bot:hostsElement with its labels and annotate as owl:deprecated "true"^^xsd:boolean. The domain and range properties may not be added

What @mathib @MadsHolten @maximelefrancois86 think?

[mathib]

sounds good to me

[mariapoveda]

If you are changing the URI is not it like removing the old one and creating a new element? Consider deprecating the original one and pointing to it from the new URI so that you can keep track of the change.

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Below a proposal taking the comments above into account.

The annotation properties provided in owl do not seem to be appropriate in our case as they are meant to be used on an instance of owl:Ontology:

OWL 2 provides several built-in annotation properties for ontology annotations. The usage of these annotation properties on entities other than ontologies is discouraged.

The owl:priorVersion annotation property specifies the IRI of a prior version of the containing ontology.
The owl:backwardCompatibleWith annotation property specifies the IRI of a prior version of the containing ontology that is compatible with the current version of the containing ontology.
The owl:incompatibleWith annotation property specifies the IRI of a prior version of the containing ontology that is incompatible with the current version of the containing ontology. 

@prefix rdf:        <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix owl:        <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdfs:       <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd:        <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

@prefix bot: <https://w3id.org/bot#> .

# as proposed in afeb8407d3e5700e24aaf734a2baeeea982f36ef but without uncommented comments
bot:hasSubElement a owl:ObjectProperty ;
  rdfs:label
    "has sub-element"@en ,
    "alberga sub elemento"@es ,
    "hoster sub element"@nl ,
    "hoster sub element"@da ,
    "värd för sub element"@sv ,
    "heeft sub element"@nl ,
    "a sous-élément"@fr ;        
  rdfs:comment "Relation between two building elements, either one element hosting another (e.g. a window hosted by a wall) or a subcomposition of a building element into smaller parts (e.g. a fan as part of an air handling unit)."@en ,
    "Relatie tussen twee gebouwelementen, ofwel een gebouwelement dat een ander element in zich heeft (bv. een venster in een muur), ofwel een subcompositie van een gebouwelement in kleinere delen (bv. een ventilator als deel van een air handling unit)"@nl ;
    rdfs:seeAlso bot:hostsElement .

# old object property reintroduced

bot:hostsElement a owl:ObjectProperty ;
        rdfs:label      "hosts element"@en ,
                        "hoster element"@nl ,
                        "hoster element"@da ,
                        "heeft element"@nl ;
        rdfs:comment    "Relation between an element a) and another element b) hosted by element a). Example: inst:wall bot:hostsElement inst:window"@en ,
                        "Relatie tussen een gebouwelement a) en een ander element b) dat een ander element in zich heeft a). Voorbeeld: inst:wall bot:hostsElement inst:window"@nl ,
                        "Relation mellem en bygningsdel a) og en anden bygningsdel b) hostet af element a). Eksempel: inst:wall bot:hostsElement inst:window"@da ;
    owl:deprecated "true"^^xsd:boolean .

EDIT: In the multiple OWL 2 documents provided by W3C one can get easily lost. Thanks to my colleague A. Müller I was pointed to the respective recommendation LINK. owl:deprecatedClass and owl:deprecatedProperty have existed in the past but are now to be substituted by owl:deprecated annotation property.

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

This merge request seems to be overtaken. I suggest to close and not merge.

Instead the update should be conducted along with definition updates as of Milestone v0.3.2 and issues #47 #54 #66 #65

Handling deprecated properties in BOT should be handled seperately

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Is superseded by https://github.com/w3c-lbd-cg/bot/pull/73