Auto PR: assertion_evidence.yaml generated from google spreadsheets using schemasheets

[puja-trivedi]

This PR adds a autogenerated assertion_evidence.yaml file.

[djarecka]

looking at the ER diagram, and there are couple connections that are not clear to me:

• there are two connections between Agent and Activity. I think we need at most one connection, and the part Agent -> was_associated_with-> Activity should be removed
• I asked also yesterday, but I'm not sure what is EvidenceSummary that is connected to EvidenceLine
• Also shouldn't we have EvidenceItem connected to EvidenceLine instead of just Document, as it is in sepio
• There are boxes that are not connected to anything, I'm not sure if we need right now classes for ManualAssertion and AutomaticAssertion, maybe we can just have this as possible values for AssertionType for now?
• There is also Evidence that should be removed?

@tekrajchhetri -please comment

[patrick-lloyd-ray]

there are two connections between Agent and Activity. I think we need at most one connection, and the part Agent -> was_associated_with-> Activity should be removed

IMO, agent participates_in activity is the appropriate relation

[tekrajchhetri]

@djarecka Please find my answer below.

• there are two connections between Agent and Activity. I think we need at most one connection, and the part Agent -> was_associated_with-> Activity should be removed.

 I agree with @patrick-lloyd-ray suggestion for `Agent` and `Activity` relation.

• I asked also yesterday, but I'm not sure what is EvidenceSummary that is connected to EvidenceLine

The EvidenceSummary is like a justification or some author's description. Now that we're using the Annotation class, we should remove it and connect it to Annotation.

• Also shouldn't we have EvidenceItem connected to EvidenceLine instead of just Document, as it is in sepio

We can include the EvidenceItem. However, we should be fine without it as well. If you see the image you can notice that EvidenceItem is again described by Document.

• There are boxes that are not connected to anything, I'm not sure if we need right now classes for ManualAssertion and AutomaticAssertion, maybe we can just have this as possible values for AssertionType for now?

AssertionType are subclass of AssertionMethod and it seems that ER-diagram generator doesn't visualize it now, something that I was discussing in the SLACK. However, when I generated the OWL file, the subclass-hierarchy are generated correctly.

• There is also Evidence that should be removed?

Yes, we agreed to replace Evidence with EvidenceItem. Probably, @puja-trivedi missed it?

[tekrajchhetri]

Update: I checked the file and I can see the classes EvidenceLine and Annotation used. Not sure why it has not been reflected in ER-diagram. Maybe there's issue with the generator? @puja-trivedi ?

[patrick-lloyd-ray]

Generally speaking, but with some exceptions, I would like to avoid descriptions that classify via negation. Could this be: "An assertion method that is made via an automated process."? Perhaps if this is intended only to cover in silico assertions, we could add a clause to that effect.

[tekrajchhetri]

I have updated the google sheet with An assertion method executed automatically by machines without human intervention. definition. So next time when we generate the model, it should replace this negated definition.

[puja-trivedi]

there are two connections between Agent and Activity. I think we need at most one connection, and the part Agent -> was_associated_with-> Activity should be removed

IMO, agent participates_in activity is the appropriate relation

@patrick-lloyd-ray - we don't see participates_in in the prov ontology. Do you think we should define this attribute ourselves or is this from another ontology?

[patrick-lloyd-ray]

there are two connections between Agent and Activity. I think we need at most one connection, and the part Agent -> was_associated_with-> Activity should be removed

IMO, agent participates_in activity is the appropriate relation

@patrick-lloyd-ray - we don't see participates_in in the prov ontology. Do you think we should define this attribute ourselves or is this from another ontology?

Oh, I was thinking in BFO/RO world. According to the RO->PROV mapping, it should be was associated with.

[djarecka]

worked moved to #130