PMD core ontology: missing hasQuantitativeValueOutput/Input relations

To create our application ontology for pyiron workflows, we are trying to map our pyiron ontology to pmdco, with creating sub-classes of pmdco.
In this process, we are confused about how to define relations: hasQuantitativeValueInput and hasQuantitativeValueOutput. They have domain as QuantitativeValue, and range as Simulation Process.
There are two available objection relation in pmdco:

  • hasSecondaryQuantitativeMeasurement
  • hasOutputObject /hasInputObject

But based on the domain and range specified for the above options, it is not clear for us which to use.
There might need to rethink about these relations!
I appreciate if someone from the ontology team could give us feedback.

2 Like

Perhaps @henkbirkholz and @danilo.dessi or @mehwish.alam have an idea? We could also tagg the AM and POs of the groups @markus.schilling @bernd.bayerlein @nadine.golowin @Christoph.Schweizer

2 Like

Hi Muhammad,

let’s start with an assumption of what might be the direct answer to an implicit question.

We are assuming that you are looking for object properties that are not missing – just named differently:

‚hasQuantitativeValueInput‘ → ‚hasQuantitativeNominalParameter‘
‚hasQuantitativeValueOutput‘ → ‚hasQuantitativeMeasurement‘ XOR ‚hasQuantitativeSecondaryMeasurement‘

The super-class/parent of both of these is:

‚hasQuantativeParameter‘

The taxonomy in some more detail:

hasQuantitativeParameter
    hasQuantitativeNominalParameter         ; --> (domain=Process; range=QuantityValue)
        hasQuantitativeNominalMetadataParameter
        hasQuantitativeNominalPrimaryParameter
        hasQuantitativeNominalSecondaryParameter
    hasQuantitativeMeasurement              ; --> (domain=Process; range=QuantityValue)
        hasQuantitativeMetadataMeasurement
        hasQuantitativePrimaryMetadata       
        hasQuantitativeSecondaryMeasurement

Does that help and address your question at least partially? Let’s start from here. Maybe we can establish a bit more context.

Viele Grüße,

the IWT Onto-Team

2 Like

thanks @henkbirkholz for your response. I will discuss your suggestion in the discovery 2 meeting tomorrow and I will respond back to you.

1 Like

Hello @henkbirkholz,
thanks for your detailed response. I discussed your suggested ObjectRelations within our group. The issue is that we are looking for an input/ouput relation between our parameters (mostly numerical values in the form of single value or a list) and simulations (which is subclass of process). And unfortunately, the definition hasQuantitativeParameter or hasQuantitativeMeasurement might not convey this relationship. This might be a fit as a separate ObjectRelation in the pmd core ontology.

1 Like