Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rework model #1444 #1707

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023
Merged

rework model #1444 #1707

merged 24 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023

Conversation

stap-m
Copy link
Contributor

@stap-m stap-m commented Oct 2, 2023

Summary of the discussion

From #1444

Type of change (CHANGELOG.md)

Added

  • model
  • model role
  • scale model
  • mathematical model

Updated

  • OEO_00000274 relabeled from model to numerical computer model and reclassified as mathematical model

Removed

  • Removed a broken link #

Workflow checklist

Automation

Closes #1444

PR-Assignee

Reviewer

  • 🐙 Follow the Reviewer Guide
  • 🐙 Provided feedback and show sufficient appreciation for the work done

@github-actions github-actions bot added the oeo-model changes the oeo-model module label Oct 2, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the oeo-shared changes the oeo-shared module label Oct 2, 2023
@stap-m
Copy link
Contributor Author

stap-m commented Oct 2, 2023

Any reason why we don't classify mathematical model as information content entity? @l-emele @areleu

Regarding #1444 (comment):

  • the definition of models seem to fit for the new generic model class. Therefore, I'd change the domain.
  • the definition of has contributor seem to fit for the new generic model class, too.
  • For the subproperties of has contributor: tbd

Originally posted by @stap-m in #1444 (comment)

@stap-m stap-m marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2023 20:27
@l-emele
Copy link
Contributor

l-emele commented Oct 19, 2023

Any reason why we don't classify mathematical model as information content entity?

I am fine with that. I also already commented somewhere that I think that model could be classified as information content entity.

@stap-m
Copy link
Contributor Author

stap-m commented Oct 23, 2023

The latest CI error looks similar to the one fixed in #1729 . Let's merge #1724 and see, wether the problem still occurs.

@stap-m stap-m requested review from l-emele and areleu October 23, 2023 08:54
@l-emele
Copy link
Contributor

l-emele commented Oct 23, 2023

I found why the CI is failing. There are multiple reasons. First, there is a " too much at one place, see specific comment.

Second, you add the following two axioms:

'has organisation'
    Domain: 'numerical computer model' or 'information content entity'
    Range: 'has role' some 'organisational role

'has client'
    'numerical computer model' or 'information content entity'
    Range: 'has role' some client

Be aware that both has organisation and has client already identical ranges in oeo-social. Additional there are already different ranges in oeo-model.

But the problem why the CI fails is that neither organisational role nor client are known to oeo-shared.

I suggest the following:

  1. As we make numerical computer model a subclass of information content entity, the range expression 'numerical computer model' or 'information content entity' can be simplified in both cases to information content entity. So the domain axiom will contain IAO classes only.
  2. organisational role and client are both defined in oeo-social, has organisation. Thus, has client should be moved to oeo-social, too, as the only OEO classes they depend on are in this class.

@stap-m
Copy link
Contributor Author

stap-m commented Oct 24, 2023

But the problem why the CI fails is that neither organisational role nor client are known to oeo-shared.

Thanks, that was the problem!
I didn't read your comment closely yesterday and moved organisational role nor client to oeo-shared. For organisational role this is the right place in my view, since organisation is defined by it. I will move client back, though, and follow your proposal.

Copy link
Contributor

@l-emele l-emele left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine now.

@github-actions github-actions bot added oeo-sector oeo-social changes the oeo-social module labels Oct 24, 2023
@stap-m stap-m merged commit 1f465bc into dev Oct 24, 2023
4 checks passed
@stap-m stap-m deleted the feature-1399-rework-model branch October 25, 2023 11:48
@stap-m stap-m mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2023
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
oeo-model changes the oeo-model module oeo-sector oeo-shared changes the oeo-shared module oeo-social changes the oeo-social module
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

The definition of Model does not entirely encompass literature definitions
2 participants