search

w3c / vsso

The Vehicle Signal Ontology (VSSo) based on COVESA VSS and making use of the SOSA/SSN modeling patterns
Other
15 stars 12 forks source link

Structural fixes to vsso-core #32

Closed jdacoello closed 2 years ago

jdacoello commented 2 years ago

This PR fixes the following structural issues in the vsso-core model:

fix: Add the union in the domain of positionedAt according to its definition. fix: Remove partOfVehicle object property (issue #31) feat: Add Transitive characteristic to partOf property (issue #31) fix: Remove redundant object properties hasStaticVehicleProperty and hasDynamicVehicleProperty. Add object property hasVehicleProperty (issue #30) feat: Add disjoint (i.e., no individual can be an instance of more than one of the primitive classes) fix: Change namespace from github.com to the official w3.org domain (complements the solution to #25 for vsso-core)

This cleaner version of vsso-core looks like the following:

image

felix-loesch commented 2 years ago

OK for me. The object property vsso:partOf in your fix has still the old rdfs:comment and rdfs:label. Instead of "partOfVehicleComponent" it should be named "partOf" to be consistent with the IRI definition.

jdacoello commented 2 years ago

The object property vsso:partOf in your fix has still the old rdfs:comment and rdfs:label. Instead of "partOfVehicleComponent" it should be named "partOf" to be consistent with the IRI definition.

Done! I committed the fixed annotation properties.

jdacoello commented 2 years ago

FYI the resulting vsso-core model looks like:

image

danielwilms commented 2 years ago

A couple of things: First of all this PR addresses many different aspects and makes the discussion really hard and long. Second, none of the points has been discussed initially. So, I'd suggest the following:

  1. Let's close this PR
  2. Create issues for the changes you propose, which are independent of each other
  3. Once they are concluded you can create PRs.

Some of the commits have side effects to the generation, and we should go through a thorough discussion.

jdacoello commented 2 years ago

This PR is has been closed because, as suggested, it will be divided into individual issues to facilitate discussions and decisions.