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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Classify Action properties #13

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024
Merged

Classify Action properties #13

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024

Conversation

ajnelson-nist
Copy link
Contributor

These properties are dfined using the participant and perdurant-proper-parthood properties currently indicated in UCO Issue 544.

@ajnelson-nist
Classify Action properties
1815f23 
These properties are dfined using the participant and
perdurant-proper-parthood properties currently indicated in UCO Issue
544.

No effects were observed on Make-managed files.

References:
* ucoProject/UCO#544

Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <alexander.nelson@nist.gov>
@ajnelson-nist
Copy link
Contributor Author

@plbt5 , I'm particularly interested in your opinion on if gufo:MaterialRelationshipType was appropriate to use here. By my current understanding, the gUFO documentation indicates an instance of gufo:MaterialRelationshipType is a property that would only be used as a triple that de-reifies (/flattens) an instance of a gufo:Relator. E.g., if org:Membership is a gufo:Relator, then org:memberOf would be its gufo:MaterialRelationshipType. To you, is it fine to declare a gufo:MaterialRelationshipType without consideration of defining a corresponding gufo:Relator?

The properties I typed in the first patch seem intrinsic to their subjects, and while some can be qualified, others don't seem (to me) to need qualification. E.g., under PROV-O, uco-action:performer could align with prov:wasAssociatedWith, which has a reification of prov:Association for the sake of describing how specifically an agent is associated. Off the top of my head, I can't think of such a potential gufo:Relator for uco-action:result.

I'm fine rolling back the gufo:MaterialRelationshipType bits if you otherwise agree with this PR.

Aside from this discussion, this PR is ready for review and merge.

@ajnelson-nist ajnelson-nist marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2024 13:14
@ajnelson-nist ajnelson-nist requested a review from a team as a code owner July 15, 2024 13:14
@ajnelson-nist
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is similar in spirit to UCO-Profile-BFO PR 2.

@ajnelson-nist
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merge conflicts addressed.

@plbt5 plbt5 merged commit 4f5050c into main Oct 11, 2024
1 check passed
@plbt5 plbt5 deleted the classify_action_properties branch October 11, 2024 14:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@plbt5 plbt5 plbt5 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@ajnelson-nist @plbt5