Avoid (Ontological) Weasel Words in Definitions (unnecessary phrases or clauses that merely suggest a boundary) #366
jonathanvajda
started this conversation in
Ideas
Replies: 3 comments
-
|
@jonathanvajda I hope future versions of CCO incorporate your points. They should be in the Best Practices of Ontology Development document. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
@jonathanvajda I've started a thread in the discussion board section regarding the creation of a style guide. Can we move this issue under that heading and close here? Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Sometimes intentionally vague language is necessary, as some boundaries are essentially vague. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I had conversation with the CUBRC team offline, but I was told to make this request public.
Definitions should avoid examples and intentionally vague language. This isn't an inviolable rule, but one we can avoid in a mid-level ontology. There are cagey words that give wiggle room, and we can avoid them. Terms and phrases like:
Examples are supposed to be annotated with cco:example_of_usage
Elucidations are supposed to be annotated with cco:elucidation
For the mid-level ontologies, here's what my QC SPARQL query pulled:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions