-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
improve disjoints file #72
Comments
Why is this necessary? These files will be enormous, we are talking 2-3 GB, which will severely limit the sort of servers we can use to run a release due to upload restrictions. What ontology you know of is not using the slim file? |
Ubergraph uses the full ontology. I think it would be good to have it for completeness. We could provide only a zipped version. I don't think it would require much memory to generate. |
For creating the disjoints axioms over the whole ontology, I think we should use Jena instead of owltools & robot. It should be more memory efficient. Let's do this as a separate task after releasing the update to the taxslim disjoints. |
It's not just ontologies that use this - this is used for validating GAFs
which can theoretically come from any sequenced species
…On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:40 AM Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
Publish a disjoints file for the complete taxonomy.
Why is this necessary? These files will be *enormous*, we are talking 2-3
GB, which will severely limit the sort of servers we can use to run a
release due to upload restrictions. What ontology you know of is not using
the slim file?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#72 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOMMPWDJJCDZSHVHGALWR73VJANCNFSM6AAAAAATYKPCRQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
I'm going to reopen this just to remember that we want to expand to the whole taxonomy. |
Currently there is a product that covers only the taxslim, containing these disjointness axioms:
X DisjointWith Y
for all sibling taxaX
andY
(in_taxon some X) DisjointWith (in_taxon some Y)
for all sibling taxaX
andY
I would like to request two enhancements:
(in_taxon some X) DisjointWith (in_taxon some (not X))
for every taxonX
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: