Populate TBox from files

[alex-mitrevski]

Just as for assertions, it could be useful to have the possibility to add new classes and object properties to the ontology using a (possibly YAML-based) configuration file.

This is related to #2 and #17

[Sushant-Chavan]

@alex-mitrevski, A few questions regarding the TBox definition removal APIs:

1. When a class is removed, should we remove all its subclasses as well?
2. When a class is removed, should we remove all the properties which have their domain/range as the class to be deleted?
3. When a class/property is removed, should we remove all the assertions associated with the class/property?

[alex-mitrevski]

2 and 3 should definitely be done I think. I'm not sure about 1, but my gut feeling is we shouldn't do it (worst case - if Object is removed, all classes and properties from the ontology will be removed).

[Sushant-Chavan]

But, if we don't remove the sub-classes, the immediate children of the class that was removed will be treated as the top-level classes (i.e. at the same level as Object) right? Is this desired?

[alex-mitrevski]

I think whoever is deleting the classes should simply be aware of this behaviour, but I think it would be desired. I also don't think it would make sense to clear out the ontology just because you want to delete the top-level class, for example.

[Sushant-Chavan]

Ok, So I will proceed with implementing just the points 2 and 3 mentioned above.

[Sushant-Chavan]

@alex-mitrevski, I was thinking we could use the following format for the YAML file with class and property definitions. What do you think?

class_definitions:
    class_name1: [] # Interpreted as top level class
    class_name2: [ParentClass1]
    class_name3: [ParentClass1, ParentClass2] # Multiple parent classes
property_definitions:
    property_name1:
        domain: [domain_ns (or None), domain_name]
        range: [range_ns (or None), range_name]
        type: 'PropertyType' # or None
    property_name2:
        domain: [domain_ns (or None), domain_name]
        range: [range_ns (or None), range_name]
        type: 'PropertyType' # or None

[alex-mitrevski]

Yeah, I think that looks good.

[alex-mitrevski]

Resolved by #28