Fix/resolve pr 870 conflict#871
Conversation
Version 1.7
Version 1.7 2024-11-03
- Merged develop into master. - Cleaned up a large number of definitions, comments, inverse definitions, domains, and ranges across ontology modules. - Revised temporal and event modeling, including interval relations, temporal ordering, process parthood, and several event definitions. - Refactored information entity content, including updates to Information Bearing Artifact / Entity, document-related classes, and the introduction of Media Content Entity. - Added and revised artifact, agent, measurement, transportation, infrastructure, and sensor-related content. - Removed, deprecated, or reorganized outdated content, including familial relations and selected legacy labels/classes. - Improved module/merge alignment and fixed ontology syntax and build issues. - Added and repaired SPARQL QC queries for the release pipeline, including checks for labels, definitions, annotations, IRIs, and duplicate declarations. - Added release/build tooling, including automated release notes generation and new make targets for diffing, version stamping, and merged builds. - Expanded contributor documentation, style guidance, IRI registry support, and repository/site configuration.
This reverts commit 5d506a5. :wq#
…eOntologiesMerged.ttl
|
There were concerns that there are differences in content, e.g. classes in merged on develop that aren't in the release and vice versa. I'm only seeing time updates in the commits at the moment. Are those the only differences you found? |
|
@johnbeve : There are content differences beyond timestamps (~130 IRIs in master not in develop, 5 in develop not in master). That's a separate issue from what this PR is fixing. This PR just resolves the merge conflict blocking #870. The content reconciliation of the merged file should be handled as a follow-up. Also, I can see a lot of changes accumulated in develop after the CCO PURLs PR was merged. Should we first coordinate with Mark to fix the CCO IRIs not resolving issue before merging #870 into master, or is it okay to proceed as-is? |
2 participants
Fixing merge conflicts