Rename ontology uri property to iri #400
+64
−6
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ hierarchically, grouping each relationship under the concept that plays its firs | |
| | `description` | string | No | Human-readable description | | ||
| | `ai_context` | string/object | No | Additional context for AI tools | | ||
| | `ontology` | list | Yes | Concepts and relationships they group that form this ontology | | ||
| | `prefixes` | object | No | Namespace prefixes used to abbreviate [IRIs](#global-identifiers) | | ||
|
|
||
| Each component of an ontology declares a concept and lists the relationships where that | ||
| concept plays the first role. The concept's name is the value of the `concept` field, and | ||
|
|
@@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ Concepts have the following schema: | |
| | `identify_by` | list | No | Names of relationships that uniquely reference objects of this concept | | ||
| | `requires` | list | No | Expressions that constrain this concept's population | | ||
| | `relationships` | list | No | Relationships where this concept plays the first role | | ||
| | `iri` | string | No | Optional [global identifier](#global-identifiers) of this concept | | ||
|
|
||
| Each concept is either an entity type or a value type. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -155,6 +157,7 @@ Each relationship that is declared under a concept conforms to the following sch | |
| | `derived_by` | list | No | Expressions that derive links of this relationship | | ||
| | `requires` | list | No | Expressions that constrain this relationship's population | | ||
| | `verbalizes` | list | Yes | Patterns describing how to verbalize links | | ||
| | `iri` | string | No | Optional [global identifier](#global-identifiers) of this relationship | | ||
|
|
||
| Each relationship is uniquely identified by prepending its declared name with that of the containing | ||
| concept. For instance, in: | ||
|
|
@@ -379,6 +382,60 @@ ontology: | |
| the first expression requires any value that plays the `Amount` role to be positive while the second | ||
| requires any item that has sales in some store to be offered in that store. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Global identifiers | ||
|
|
||
| Concept and relationship names are local to the ontology that declares them. To relate a concept | ||
| or relationship to a definition outside the ontology, for instance a class or property in an | ||
| existing RDF or OWL vocabulary, it can carry an optional `iri` field that holds a globally unique | ||
| identifier. An IRI (Internationalized Resource Identifier, [RFC 3987](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987/)) | ||
| is a generalization of a URI that permits characters beyond ASCII. Any URI is also a valid IRI. | ||
|
|
||
| The `iri` field accepts two forms: | ||
|
|
||
| - A full IRI, e.g. `http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent`. | ||
| - A QName of the form `prefix:local`, e.g. `foaf:Agent`, where `prefix` is declared in the | ||
| ontology-level `prefixes` map. The QName expands to the prefix's IRI followed by the local | ||
| part, so `foaf:Agent` expands to `http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent`. | ||
|
|
||
| The `prefixes` map is declared at the top level of the specification. Each key is a prefix and each | ||
| value is the IRI that the prefix abbreviates: | ||
|
|
||
| ```yaml | ||
| name: OrganizationOntology | ||
| prefixes: | ||
| foaf: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ | ||
| org: http://www.w3.org/ns/org# | ||
| ontology: | ||
| - concept: Agent | ||
| type: EntityType | ||
| iri: foaf:Agent | ||
| description: "A generic agent (person, organization, etc.)" | ||
| relationships: | ||
| - name: has_homepage | ||
| iri: foaf:homepage | ||
| roles: | ||
| - concept: Homepage | ||
| multiplicity: ManyToOne | ||
| verbalizes: [ "{Agent} has {Homepage}" ] | ||
| - concept: Homepage | ||
| type: ValueType | ||
| extends: [String] | ||
| - concept: Organization | ||
| type: EntityType | ||
| extends: [Agent] | ||
| iri: http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Organization | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Here `Agent` and `Agent.has_homepage` are identified by QNames that resolve against the `foaf` | ||
| prefix, while `Organization` is identified by a full IRI. Both forms denote the same kind of | ||
| identifier; the QName is merely shorthand. A QName whose prefix is not declared in `prefixes` | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Nit: this states a validity rule, but nothing enforce it: It has been mentioned before by @kayemkim . I believe either the schema/validator should enforce this, or the doc should say explicitly that this is a semantic constraint left to tooling outside |
||
| is invalid. | ||
|
|
||
| An IRI does not change how a concept or relationship is referenced within its own ontology. | ||
| Expressions, roles, and mappings continue to use local names. The IRI serves tools that translate | ||
| between this specification and IRI-based languages and lets multiple ontologies state that they | ||
| refer to the same externally defined concept or relationship. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Ontology mappings | ||
|
|
||
| Ontology mappings declare how to map the values of fields at the logical level to objects and links | ||
|
|
@@ -590,6 +647,7 @@ though `Store` plays a role in three of the relationships. | |
| - **0.2.0.dev0** (2026-05-29): Basic support for ontologies and logical schema mappings | ||
| - Core ontology structure: Concepts, relationships, and business rules (requires and derived_by) | ||
| - Schema mappings from one or more logical models into an ontology | ||
| - Optional IRIs on concepts and relationships, with namespace prefixes declared at the top level | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
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.
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.
Not directly related to this PR, but... Please note that deciding which form to parse here is not really possible to do for all possible cases. For example
urn:isbn:whateveris a valid IRI. What if you have a prefixurn:?In LinkML there is the exact same issue with the
uriorcuriedatatype. See: linkml/linkml#3906Should there be a follow-up to define a clear algorithm for how
irishould be parsed and serialized?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.
URNs are valid IRIs (from RDC 3987) so they should be allowed. @jochenchrist perhaps the md can reflect this:
The ‘irk’ field accepts two forms:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent,urn:foaf:AgentI’m also curious about @Ostrzyciel’s statements that it’s not possible to implement all cases. RDF processors have been doing this for years. Do I misunderstand your statement?
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.
Good point. I think @Ostrzyciel is pointing that how can we decide if a value is a QName (to lookup the prefix) vs. an URN, as both have the form
schema:values.However, URNs always start with
urn:....An idea might be to not allow a prefix
urn.I will update the PR accordingly to mention that URNs are alos allowed as IRI.
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.
In Turtle, these two have different syntaxes. Full IRIs are:
<urn:fullIri>. And CURIES/QNames are:urn:qname. They are interpreted differently.URNs are just one possible case where this will break :) IRIs have a ton of forms. You can get a sample here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#Example_URIs
As for the solution to this conundrum: I would recommend a solution along the lines of this one proposed in LinkML: linkml/linkml#3906 (comment)
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.
So, what do we do about this ambiguity?
I'm fine to merge as is and follow up but it's something we should address.
Concretely, my take on that: if
prefixesdeclaresurn: http://example.org/ns#and a concept setsiri: urn:isbn:0451450523(a valid RFC 3987 IRI), does that get expanded as a QName intohttp://example.org/ns#isbn:0451450523or preserved as the literal URN?As written, an implementer following "a QName ... where prefix is declared in the ontology-level prefixes map" would expend it (silently producing the wrong global identifier).
Where should we move here? @jochenchrist ?