Skip to content

Update properties.json with reverse link names#97

Open
lzehl wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
lzehl_addReverseLinkNames
Open

Update properties.json with reverse link names#97
lzehl wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
lzehl_addReverseLinkNames

Conversation

@lzehl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lzehl lzehl commented Mar 25, 2026

@apdavison I did not use the fairgraph suggestions, because I don't think that they are all correct (and avoiding ambiguous reverse linkages).

@apdavison @Raphael-Gazzotti @olinux I semi-automatically generated the ones in this PR now for each property (without over harmonizing which I'm not really sure is working several cases).

For now I would suggest to merge this (if there is no obvious error) and then we can revisit the whole concept and discuss about conventions (also for property names in general) in the future.

@lzehl lzehl self-assigned this Mar 25, 2026
@lzehl lzehl added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 25, 2026
@apdavison
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I don't see any obvious errors, although it is difficult to review because if I expand the context my browser hangs due to the size of the file, so let's merge this and fix any problems as we encounter them.

@@ -26190,7 +26189,7 @@
"https://openminds.ebrains.eu/sands/AnatomicalEntity"
]
},
"nameForReverseLink": null
"nameForReverseLink": "wasSemanticallyAnchoredIn"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This property is deprecated, but it feels odd to see 'was' instead of 'is', especially compared to other inverse properties.

@Raphael-Gazzotti
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

General comment: I’m not sure we need reverse links to QuantitativeValue or QuantitativeValueArray instances, since identical measurements would typically be reused rather than linked separately. That also feels a bit inconsistent with our perception of embedded types.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants