Versions Compared

Old Version 168

changes.mady.by.user William Sobel

Saved on

compared with

New Version 169

changes.mady.by.user William Sobel

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Contributors:

...

The IOF AnnotationVocabulary (AV) OWL file (AnnotationVocabulary) is the normative source for IOF annotation properties. It includes a superset of the annotation properties discussed in this document along with the metadata about them. This document’s purpose is to provide the requirements and instructions for authors of IOF ontologies. The AV should be imported into IOF ontologies under development to make these annotation properties available; however, since the IOF Core imports IOF AV, using AV requires no explicit owl:imports statement.The rules in this document changed some of the annotations needed by IOF ontologies as compared to those used in Core beta and before, deprecating at least one annotation property and adding a few additional. A revision of the AV consistent with this document was uploaded to the iofoundry/CoreDev GitHub repo (only) 2 Aug 2022, but older versions of the AV will not provide complete supportdevelopment to make these annotation properties available; however, since the IOF Core imports IOF AV, using AV requires no explicit owl:imports statement.

All approved ontologies MUST adhere to the following annotation requirements for all constructs.

...

  1. MUST: This word means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

  2. MUST NOT: This phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

  3. SHOULD: This word means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications MUST be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

  4. SHOULD NOT: This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.

  5. MAY: This word means that an item is truly optional. One user may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product, while another vendor may omit the same item.

...

...

  • elucidation -- iof-av:elucidation

    • elucidation MUST NOT be used and is deprecated.

  • is primitive – iof-av:isPrimitive

    • Definition: boolean flag indicating that necessary and sufficient conditions are not provided

    • is primitive MUST be present if the term does not have necessary and sufficient conditions and the value of the annotation MUST be set to true (w3c boolean)

    • MUST only apply to classes

    • Otherwise, if necessary and sufficient conditions are present, then the annotation MAY be provided and the value MUST be set to false

    • is primitiveMUST default to set to false

    • If possible, terms SHOULD have necessary and sufficient conditions

    • Note: the term may not always remain primitive if necessary and sufficient conditions can be defined in a later version

    • Example:

      • person: true

      • shipment preparation process: true

  • primitive rationale – iof-av:primitiveRationale

    • Definition: reason why the necessary and sufficient conditions could not be provided

    • MUST only apply to classes

    • When is primitive is set to true , the primitive rationale MUST be provided

    • The primitive rationale MUST explain why necessary and sufficient conditions are not possible

    • The rationale SHOULD indicate what is missing if additional work is required to define necessary and sufficient conditions

    • Example:

      • person: insufficient constructs to create necessary and sufficient conditions

      • shipment preparation process: shipment preparation process often includes at least one picking, internal movement, packaging, marking, weighing, or loading process, but since those processes are not added to the ontology yet, it is not possible to generate necessary and sufficient conditions at this time for this entity

...

Symbol

Meaning

UTF-8 Code

∧

Conjunction

U+2227

∨

Disjunction

U+2228

¬

Negation

U+00AC

∃

Existential Quantification

U+2203

∀

Universal Quantification

U+27C7

→

Implication/Conditional

U+2192

↔

Equivalence/Bi-Implication

U+2194

( )

Left/Right Parentheses

Left: U+0028, Right: U+0029

[ ]

Left/Right Square Brackets

Left: U+005B, Right: U+005D

{ }

Left/Right Braces

Left: U+007B, Right: U+007D

  • Examples:

    • product:

      • obo:Continuant(c) ∧ ¬(obo:SpecificallyDependentContinuant(c) ∨ Person(c) ∨ Organization(c)) ∧ ∃r (ProductRole(r) ∧ obo:hasRole(c, r))

  • semi-formal natural language definition – iof-av:semiFormalNaturalLanguageDefinition

    • Definition: transitional definition expressing first-order logic definition using semantics understandable by ontologically knowledgable domain practitioner without predicate logic semantics

    • The semi-formal natural language definition MUST be provided if the term is not primitive (is primitive is false )

    • The semi-formal natural language definition MUST only occur once

    • Variables SHOULD be removed if they do not need to be referenced later in the expression

    • Rules for writing necessary axioms, sufficient axioms, and necessary and sufficient axioms:

      • SHOULD use “every instance of {term} is defined as exactly an instance of {conditions}” for necessary and sufficient conditions

        • Agent(x) ↔ (Person(x) ∨ GroupOfAgents(x) ∨ EngineeredSystem(x)) ∧ ∃y (AgentRole(y) ∧ hasRole(x,y))

        • every instance of ‘agent’ is defined as exactly an instance of ‘person’, ‘group of agents’, or ‘engineered system’ that ‘has role’ some ‘agent role’

    • The following syntax MUST be used:

      • A construct label MUST be used and its exact syntax preserved for constructs in this or an imported ontology

      • Quotes (') MUST surround all labels

      • The words “is a” MUST NOT be used without a qualification

        • “is a subclass of” MUST be used to indicate a subclass relationship

        • “is an instance of” MUST be used to indicate an instance of a universal

      • Variables SHOULD be used where needed in formulating the definition

      • The rules for natural language definitions MUST be applied otherwise

    • Examples:

      • ‘product’: every instance of ‘product' is defined as exactly an instance of (‘continuant’ and not ‘person’ and not ‘organization’ and not ‘specifically dependent continuant’) that ‘bears' some ‘product role’

      • ‘agent’: every instance of ‘agent’ is defined as exactly an instance of ‘person’, ‘group of agents’, or ‘engineered system’ that ‘has role’ some ‘agent role’

  • logic axiom - iof-av:logicAxiom

    • Definition: logical statements constraining the interpretation of the notion represented by the construct that does not provide necessary and sufficient conditions

    • Note: This annotation property is an abstraction of the more specialized logic axiom annotations used in IOF. However, this annotation property can also be used to group the logic axiom annotation values of different forms (such as FOL and natural language) that express the same meaning for a particular construct

    • A first-order logic axiom expression and a semi-formal natural language axiom expression SHOULD be added as property values for each logic axiom annotation using one of each of the corresponding logic axiom annotation sub-properties

    • Example:

      • Code Block
        iof-av:logicAxiom [
  iof-av:firstOrderLogicAxiom "GenericallyDependentContinuant(x) ∧ ∃e(Entity(e) ∧ isAbout(x,e)) ->InformationContentEntity(x)" ;
  iof-av:semiFormalNaturalLanguageAxiom "x is a 'Generically Dependent Continuant' that 'is About' some 'Entity' e implies x is an 'Information Content Entity'" ;
] .

  • first-order logic axiom - iof-av:firstOrderLogicAxiom

    • Definition: axiom of construct using predicate logic semantics

    • First-order logic axiom MAY be provided if the construct is primitive or non-primitive.

      • With the implication arrow → the left is sufficient, and the right is necessary

    • A construct MAY have more than one first-order logic axiom annotation

    • A first-order logic axiom value MUST adhere to first-order logic definition syntax

    • If there is more than one axiom, the axiom MUST be associated with the semi-formal natural axiom

    • Examples:

      • GenericallyDependentContinuant(x) ∧ ∃e(Entity(e) ∧ isAbout(x,e)) →
        InformationContentEntity(x)

  • semi-formal natural language axiom - iof-av:semiFormalNaturalLanguageAxiom

    • Definition: transitional definition expressing first-order logic axiom using semantics understandable by ontologically knowledgable domain practitioner without predicate logic semantics

    • Semi-formal natural language axioms MAY be provided if the term is primitive (is primitive is true )

    • A construct MAY include more than one semi-formal natural language axiom annotation

    • The definition MUST adhere to semi-formal natural language definition syntax

    • If there is more than one axiom, the axiom MUST be associated with the first-order logic axiom

    • All variables refer to instances

    • Rules for writing a necessary or sufficient axiom:

      • SHOULD use if and then to indicate the implication/conditional pattern for necessary or sufficient axiom: if antecedent, then consequent

        • AgentRole(x) → Role(x) ∧ ∃m ∃n ((MaterialEntity(m) ∧ ¬FiatObjectPart(x)) ∧ (Person(n) ∨ GroupOfAgents(n) ∨ EngineeredSystem(n)) ∧ actsOnBehalfOfAtSomeTime(m, n) ∧ roleOf(x,m))

        • 'agent role': if x is an instance of 'agent role', then x is an instance of 'role' that is the 'role of' some ('material entity' and not 'fiat object part') that 'acts on behalf of at some time' some other 'person', 'group of agents', or 'engineered system'

      • SHOULD use some type of for a universal pattern

        • InformationContentEntity(x) ∧ ∃c, ∃r ( continuant(c) ∧ RequirementSpecification(r) ∧ satisfies(x,r) ∧ prescribes(x,c)) ∧ ∀c'(prescribes(x,c') → Continuant(c')) → DesignSpecification(x)

        • if d is a ‘design specification’, then d is an ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' some type of 'continuant'

      • SHOULD use whenever when representing a multi-place temporal expression

        • ∀ p,q,t (hasContinuantPart(p, q, t) ∧ instanceOf(p, MaterialEntity, t) → instanceOf(q, site, t) ∨ instanceOf(q, ContinuantFiatBoundary, t) ∨ instanceOf(q, MaterialEntity, t)

        • whenever a ‘material entity’ ‘has part’ y then y must be a ‘site’ or a ‘material entity’ or a ‘continuant fiat boundary’

...

  • see also – rdfs:seeAlso

    • Definition: rdfs:seeAlso is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to indicate a resource that might provide additional information about the subject resource [rdfs]

    • The reference MUST be a concise reference to the related documentation

    • The reference SHOULD be a URL, if possible, otherwise a brief description of the external reference

...

  • comment – rdfs:comment

    • comment MUST NOT be used. Use one of the following instead:

      • iof-av:explanatoryNote

      • iof-av:usageNote

      • skos:scopeNote

  • explanatory note – iof-av:explanatoryNote

    • Definition: supplemental information used to clarify or describe the construct

    • explanatory note MAY be used to supplement the natural language definition of the construct

    • Example: “Item is another term semantically close to Product. But it is more general because the Item may not sellable. It is an overloaded term used by information systems to capture catalog information about real and sort of unreal (e.g., product family or option class which is a group of similar products) materials the enterprise concerns with.”

  • usage note – iof-av:usageNote

    • Definition: describes how to use the term in particular situations

    • usage note MAY be used to describe how the term is used in particular situations through an example instantiation.

    • Example: “This is how the Supplying Relation class may be used to convey who supplies what to who. SupplierRole(sr1) and BuyerRole(br1) and Product(p1) and SupplyingRelation(s1) and specificallyDependsOn(s1, sr1) and specificallyDependsOn(br1, s1) and specificallyDependsOn(p1,s1)”

  • scope note – skos:scopeNote

    • If required, scope note MUST be used to provide additional domain contextualization on the use of the term

    • From skos:

      • A note that helps to clarify the meaning and/or the use of a concept

    • Example:

...

  • maturity – iof-av:maturity

    • Definition: annotation property used to indicate the development status of a resource such as an ontology or a construct

    • Each IOF ontology MUST have exactly 1 one maturity annotation with a value of type iof-av:MaturityLevel

    • Each construct within an ontology will default to the (i.e., be assumed to have the same) maturity of the ontology unless an explicit maturity annotation for the construct indicates otherwise

    • Each construct MAY have a maturity annotation, indicating the specific construct’s status of development

    • One MUST use the following vocabulary when specifying the maturity:

      • iof-av:ReleaseReleased

        • Will not be removed from the ontology for a reasonable length of time

        • Indicates an ontology or construct that is considered to be stable and mature from a development perspective

        • Release notes will be provided for any changes concerning released content, and any revisions will be backward compatible with the prior version to the degree possible

      • iof-av:Provisional

        • Indicates an ontology or construct that is considered to be under development

        • Provisional content is subject to change and may change substantially before release. IOF users should be aware that it is not dependable but could be used for reference and as the basis for further work

...

6.2.3.2 Upper case characters, mathematical symbols, typographical signs and syntactic signs (e.g. punctuation marks, hyphens, parentheses, square brackets and other connectors or delimiters) as well as their character styles (i.e. fonts and bold, italic, bold italic, or other style conventions) shall be used in a term only if they constitute part of the normal written form of the term as conventionally used in running text. Syntactic signs shall not be used to show alternative terms. For complex terms (e.g. compounds and multiword terms), the natural word order shall be retained.

...

  • Examples and discussion

    • for necessary and sufficient conditions

      • Example (Necessary Axiom): if d is an instance of ‘design specification’, then d is an instance of ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' only instances of 'continuant' (if any)

      • Alt 2: if d is an instance of ‘design specification’, then d is an instance of ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' only instances of 'continuant'

      • Alt 3: if d is a ‘design specification’, then d is an ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' some 'continuant'

      • ** BS Alt 4: if d is a ‘design specification’, then d is an ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' some type of 'continuant'

      • SK Alt 5: if d is a ‘design specification’, then d is an instance of ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes’ some type of ‘entity’, and if so, the entity must be a ‘continuant’

      • Alt 6: if d is a ‘design specification’, then d is an ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' only types of 'continuant'

      • Example (Sufficient Axiom): if x is an ‘information content entity’ that ‘prescribes' some (‘process characteristic’ or ‘capability’ or 'continuant') that is the 'output of' some 'process', thenx is an 'objective specification’

      • Domain and Range:

        • domain(R,C) iff for all x,y (xRy --> Cx)

        • range(R,C') iff for all x,y (xRy --> C'y)

      • We need an example for: (maybe one from BFO)

        • Foo ⊑ ∀ foobar.Bar

        • Without proofreading: ∀ x (Foo(x) → (∃ y(foobar(x,y) → Bar(y))))

        • JL thinks the FOL would be this: ∀x,y(Foo(x) → (∀y(foobar(x,y) → Bar(y)))

        • JL first proposed text: “If x is an instance of ‘foo’, then if x has a ‘foobar’ relationship with y, then y is an instance of Bar“

  • Examples:

    • if x is a 'generically dependent continuant' that 'is about' some 'entity' then x is an 'information content entity'

    • ‘algorithm’: if x is an instance of ‘plan specification’ that ‘prescribes' some ‘computing process’, then x is an 'algorithm’

    • x is an Algorithm if and only if x is a PlanSpecification and there is some y such that y is a ComputingProcess and y prescribes x

    • Which is equivalent of the conjunction of the following two assertions

      • if x is a PlanSpecification and there is some y such that y is a ComputingProcess and y prescribes x, then x is an Algorithm

      • if x is an Algorithm, then x is a PlanSpecification and there is some y such that y is a ComputingProcess and y prescribes x

    • 'agent role': if x is an instance of 'agent role', then x is an instance of 'role' that is the 'role of' some ('material entity' and not 'fiat object part') that 'acts on behalf of at some time' some other 'person', 'group of agents', or 'engineered system'

    • Milos:

      • ∀x,y(Foo(x) ∧ foobar(x,y) → Bar(y)))

      • ∀x (Foo(x) → (∀y(foobar(x,y) → Bar(y)))

      • ∀x (Foo(x) → (∀y(¬(foobar(x,y)) ∨Bar(y)))

    • Milos BFO Examples:

      • From BFO:

        If a ‘has continuant part’ b then if a is an instance of ‘material entity’ then b is an instance of ‘site’ or ‘continuant fiat boundary’ or
        'material entity' [mic-1]

      • Corresponding owl axiom:

        'has continuant part at some time' only (site or 'material entity' or 'continuant fiat boundary')

      • Proposed IOF axiom:

        if x ‘has continuant part at some time’ y then y must be an instance of ‘site’ or ‘material entity’ or ‘continuant fiat boundary’

      • From BFO: b has continuant part c at some time =Def for some time t (b and c are continuants & b is a part of c at t)

      • Alternatively:

        There exists no y for which x ‘has continuant part at some time’ y holds that is not an instance of ‘site’ or ‘material entity’ or ‘continuant fiat boundary’

      • FOL: ∀ p,q,t (hasContinuantPart(p, q, t) ∧ instanceOf(p, MaterialEntity, t) → instanceOf(q, site, t) ∨ instanceOf(q, ContinuantFiatBoundary, t) ∨ instanceOf(q, MaterialEntity, t)

        • To be translated to CL eventually.

      • With the temporal relation: (solution for multi-place temporal relation). Use whenever for t. x ‘has continuant part at some time’ y → whenever x ‘has part’ y
        'at some time' → whenever

        • A. whenever a ‘material entity’ ‘has continuant part’ y then y must be a ‘site’ or a ‘material entity’ or a ‘continuant fiat boundary’

        • ** B. whenever a ‘material entity’ ‘has part’ y then y must be a ‘site’ or a ‘material entity’ or a ‘continuant fiat boundary’

        • Rationale: we need to write the FOL for the future, but not introduce new predicates

        • C. whenever a ‘material entity’ ‘has part’ y then y must be a ‘site’ or a ‘material entity’ or a ‘continuant fiat boundary’ (and every part of a ‘material entity’ is a ‘continuant’)

        • D. whenever a ‘material entity’ ‘has part’ y then y must be a ‘site’ or a ‘material entity’ or a ‘continuant fiat boundary’
          every part of a ‘material entity’ is a ‘continuant’

Future Maturity Level for Consideration

  • informative iof-av:Informative

    • Construct that is considered deprecated but included for informational purposes because it is referenced by some provisional concept

    • informative content will be removed as soon as all dependencies have been eliminated; thus IOF users should not depend on it going forward

...