-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Feature/65 support fault event model with fha and sns properties #68
Feature/65 support fault event model with fha and sns properties #68
Conversation
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.
We need to talk about refactoring all entities, how hard it would be. Let's define conventions here, add new entities with the convention in mind, and leave refactoring for a separate issue.
### http://onto.fel.cvut.cz/ontologies/fta-fmea-application/from | ||
fta-fmea:from rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ; | ||
rdfs:domain fta-fmea:failure-rate-requirement . | ||
|
||
|
||
### http://onto.fel.cvut.cz/ontologies/fta-fmea-application/has-ata-code | ||
fta-fmea:has-ata-code rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . |
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.
We need to discuss naming conventions and how hard it would be to refactor everything with those conventions. It won't be most-likely easier than now.
Conventions from CSAT:
- entities contain only small letters, with words separated by "-" (even classes)
- object properties should start with :has-
- datatype properties typically do not start with :has-
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.
I do not see a problem of refactoring. The only problem I see is that existing data won't be compatible and would need to be refactored as well.
However, I suggest to do this in a separate ticket.
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.
I suggest to do this in a separate ticket.
The only problem I can see is that we will have to also refactor old data, for example data in fta-fmea-demo
.
I have some reservation for the proposed naming conventions:
- object properties should start with 'has' - in my opinion some properties do not need it. For example,
:activatedBy
should be refactored as:has-activated-by
. I would prefer to refactor it as:activated-by
.
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.
activates
is-activated-by
has-activating-behaviour
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.
Conventions will be solved by issue kbss-cvut/fta-fmea-ui#198
3798901
to
e6df4d0
Compare
Let's agree on how it should be refactored in kbss-cvut/fta-fmea-ui#198 |
e6df4d0
to
c0f7483
Compare
…and FaultEvent.selectedEstimate
…systems and behaviors with domain entity types and allow adding Event.contextEvents.
c0f7483
to
82573b8
Compare
Resolves #65