Individuals without definition

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

We have in oeo-model a lot of individuals without definition (sorted by types):

• analytical approach Restructuring individuals: analytical approach #1147
• boolean variable Restructuring individuals: boolean variable #1148
• data format and file format Restructuring individuals: data format and file format #1149
• solver Restructuring individuals: solver #1150

Type	Individual	Updated	Definition
methodical focus	econometric
methodical focus	monte carlo
methodical focus	spreadsheet
modus	active
modus	inactive
modus	passive
software framework	c++	#1869
software framework	fortran	#1869
software framework	gams	#1889
software framework	gnu
software framework	java	#1869
software framework	math prog
software framework	matlab	#1869
software framework	modelica
software framework	ms_excel
software framework	php	#1869
software framework	python	#1869
software framework	r	#1869
software framework	ruby	#1869
software framework	vba	#1869
uncertainty approach	deterministic
uncertainty approach	stochastic

At least some of them are not unambiguous without a definition. Just three examples:

• Does csv only include comma-separated values or does csv any character-separated values?
• What is the difference between passive and inactive?
• Why is spreadsheet a methodical focus and not a data format or a software framework?

Ideas of solution

If you already have ideas for the solution describe them here

Workflow checklist

• I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[l-emele]

@christian-rli : I assigned you to this issue as most of the individuals are related to software and data.

[l-emele]

@christian-rli @Ludee : Do you already have some ideas for this issue?

[christian-rli]

We haven't gotten into this yet @l-emele . As @Ludee is getting into ontology deveopment now however, I think that this might be a good issue to begin with. I put it on our internal agenda.

[l-emele]

@Ludee : I assigned this issue now to you. Do you already have some proposals for definitions of these individuals?

[l-emele]

@OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-linked-open-data : Any suggestions for definitions? Maybe at least for some of these individuals? We do not necessarily have to implement all at once...

[l-emele]

I think, that some of the individuals have the wrong type. I would describe c++, fortran, php, python etc not as software framework ¹ but as programming language ²:

Footnotes

1. A software framework is a Software that is generic and can be adapted to a specific application. ↩

2. IAO_0000025: A language in which source code is written that is intended to be executed/run by a software interpreter. Programming languages are ways to write instructions that specify what to do, and sometimes, how to do it. (Not yet imported from IAO into OEO. ↩

[Ludee]

I will start collecting good definitions now.
Not sure how to proceed with the import from IAO.

[chrwm]

I'll remove the release milestone from the meta issue, as the sub-issues are tracked and discussions are still ongoing.

[l-emele]

In my view the following are not instances of software framework but programming languages

• c++
• fortran
• java
• php
• python
• r
• ruby
• vba

To me, it is hard to define, what differentiates each of these programming languages. But maybe it is enough, do specify where these programming languages come from. Also as the individuals are proper nouns or abbreviations I suggest to capitalise the labels. So here are some proposals for definitions:

• C++: C++ is a programming languages designed by Bjarne Stroustrup and standardised by ISO/IEC.
• Fortran: Fortran is a programming language designed by John Backus, developed by IBM and standardised by ISO/IEC.
• Java: Java is a programming language designed by James Gosling and developed by Oracle.
• PHP: PHP is a programming language designed by Rasmus Lerdorf.
• Python: Python is a programming language designed by Guido van Rossum and developed by the Python Software Foundation.
• R: R is a programming language designed by Ross Ihaka and Robert Gentleman and the R Core Team.
• Ruby: Ruby is a programming language designed by Yukihiro Matsumoto.
• VBA: VBA is a programming language based on Visual Basic and developed by Microsoft for use within the Microsoft Office software package.

Matlab is a special case, I think there are two entities to differentiate: A software framework and the programming language the software framework uses; Wikipedia describes it as: MATLAB (an abbreviation of "MATrix LABoratory" is a proprietary programming language and numeric computing environment developed by MathWorks. So I suggest two individuals:

• Rename the existing matlab to Matlab software framework and define it as: The Matlab software framework is a proprietary software framework developed by MathWorks that uses the Matlab programming language.
• Add an individual: Matlab programming language: The Matlab programming language is a programming language developed by MathWorks for use in the Matlab software framework.

Both individuals could get the alternative label Matlab. The reason to split Matlab into two is that users of the OEO can then differentiate. Also there is third-party that can use code written in the Matlab programming language, for example GNU Octave. R might be a similar case, but I do not now enough about that programming language.

Sources: Wikipedia pages of the respective programming languages.

[l-emele]

For almost a year, no one reacted and especially no one objected to my proposals above. So I will implement the definitions for the programming languages now.

[stap-m]

SWO unfortunately has no nice definitions for their classes, but contails classes for plenty of languages. We should map them, once we introduced the "skos:close to" annotation, see PR #1874

[l-emele]

I updated the table in the issue start for the individuals we already updated.

Regarding the remaining:

• class methodological focus with individuals monte carlo, econometric and spreadsheet => I think this whole concept needs a restart, I'll open a separate issue for that. => Revisit methodological focus #1885
• gams: Like with Matlab, I think we need to differentiate here between the software framework and the programming language.
  • General Algebraic Modeling System: The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) is a proprietary software framework developed by GAMS Development Corp. that uses the GAMS programming language. (Alternative label: GAMS)
  • GAMS programming language: The GAMS programming language is a programming language developed by GAMS Development Corp. for use in the General Algebraic Modeling System. (Alternative label: GAMS)
• class uncertainty approach with individuals deterministic and stochastic => Sounds like qualities of models, I'll open a separate issue for that. => Revisit model descriptor and subclasses #1886

[l-emele]

No one reacted yet, but as my gams proposal is the same pattern as with what we've done with matlab in interpret "no reaction" as "no objection" and will implement this to move forward.