Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
ICD11 Ingest #434
ICD11 Ingest #434
Changes from all commits
cfffd95
81a2d47
738ab75
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
foundationReference
@probably-can-do-after-PRDetails
In the property discussion thread, I wrote:
What to do?
What should I do in this case? Should I just ignore it? Should I integrate it into Mondo somehow, e.g. by including in
rdfs:comment
?Analysis?
Perhaps I need to show some cases of how this is used / what it looks like?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Examples?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@matentzn @twhetzel Alright, so it looks like
foundationReference
works something like this. It exists only on annotation axioms forannotatedProperty
icd11.foundation:inclusion
andicd11.foundation:exclusion
.How I determined it was annotating only these 2
cat tmp/component-download-icd11foundation.owl.owl | grep foundationReference -B 2 > ~/Desktop/foundationRef.txt
cat ~/Desktop/foundationRef.txt| grep annotatedProperty > ~/Desktop/foundationrefprops.txt
As I wrote in #462:
Example usage in OWL
For the first class, I left all properties just for reference, but for the other clases I left them out and left a
...
instead. The first class (1000337196
) actually actually had 2 axioms annotating its exclusions. I left one out. The axiom that I left in actually refers to the 2nd class (486722075
) I've shown an example for. It also has 1 exclusion and an axiom annotation on it, referenced by the 3rd class (1868408442
) I've put as an example, which itself has 4 exclusions, each with an annotation axiom.So,
inclusion
andexclusion
hold labels for classes. The URI to the foundation class (foundationReference
) is then annotated on those properties.Why not just make
inclusion
andexclusion
point to URIs for the classes instead of their labels? I suppose it probably has something to do with linearization. I assume new class IDs get generated at linearization-time, but the labels remain static.This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More
rm
issuesrm reports/icd11foundation_exclusion_reasons.robot.template.tsv slurp/icd11foundation.tsv
imports/ro_terms_combined.txt
Bug fix?:rm imports/ro_terms_combined.txt
#477I checked the build log from last week, and at the end it showed
rm reports/icd11foundation_exclusion_reasons.robot.template.tsv slurp/icd11foundation.tsv imports/ro_terms_combined.txt
. After adding that 1.PRECIOUS
, now the slurp file is no longer being removed, but the other two still are:rm reports/icd11foundation_exclusion_reasons.robot.template.tsv imports/ro_terms_combined.txt
. I think we want these, so I'm going to apply the same fix for both of those as well. I pasted more of the log frombuild-mondo-ingest
below just in case it's of any value.Log related to (3)
I have the full logs saved as
.txt
files also if interestedFrom the build last week:
From the build today:
I've followed up on these two remaining issues here:
rm reports/icd11foundation_exclusion_reasons.robot.template.tsv
rm imports/ro_terms_combined.txt
#477