[DO NOT MERGE] Ordered positions

[jesper-friis]

Added ordering to lattice vector a, b and c.

[CasperWA]

This seems very useful. We should add cartesian site positions as well and a common parent class "site position" or similar. I'll make an issue for this.

I can't seem to find where I can inspect the cardinality changes in Protégé, could you help me with this?

[CasperWA]

This seems very useful. We should add cartesian site positions as well and a common parent class "site position" or similar. I'll make an issue for this.

I can't seem to find where I can inspect the cardinality changes in Protégé, could you help me with this?

Ah, I have found where it is. It's implicit in the number of, e.g., Number or FractionalPositionAs. So FranctionalPosition hasSpatialDirectPart exactly 1 FractionalPositionB means a cardinality of exactly 1 of FranctionalPositionB. Can you give an example where the cardinality is different from 1 then, because I see some changes that the cardinality is 3 in the git diff.
Shouldn't e.g., Shape3Vector have cardinality 3 of Number or similar?

[jesper-friis]

You have several good points here.

First there is a mistake - we are breaking the non-transitivity of direct parthood. FranctionalPosition should not have FranctionalPositionA, FranctionalPositionB and FranctionalPositionC as spatial direct parts - they are spatial direct parts of its quantity value.

EMMO seems to miss the restriction Shape3Vector hasSpatialDirectPart exactly 3 Number. I guess it is among the PRs under review for EMMO. I will check...

For the crystallography ontology, I think that the solution is to create a subclass Shape3Vector for fractional positions that has spatial direct parts FranctionalPositionA, FranctionalPositionB and FranctionalPositionC.

[jesper-friis]

I updated the PR by adding a FractionalPositionVector with spatial direct parts FranctionalPositionA, FranctionalPositionB and FranctionalPositionC.

[CasperWA]

@jesper-friis Could you determine whether this and also #14 need to be rebased and implemented or if they should be closed?

[CasperWA]

@jesper-friis Could you determine whether this and also #14 need to be rebased and implemented or if they should be closed?

This is still relevant and should be implemented either in this or a future PR.

[CasperWA]

This should be "moved" to the domain-crystallography repo.