BDQ Review - Actions and Comments: Fitness for Use Framework Ontology Guide

[Tasilee]

hese are a list of actionable items from the BDQ Review 2025-12-31 Review for @Tasilee, @ArthurChapman, @tucotuco, @chicoreus and @ymgan to discuss and address before resubmission of BDQ.

Because Issue #309 was too large; Action items have been extracted and Moved into sub-issues. This forms one of a number of sub-issues from #309.

Basics: Base documents under https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/tree/master/tg2/_build_review.

A number of issues may be duplicated across topics and are listed at the bottom of #309.

Fitness for Use Framework Ontology Guide https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/blob/master/tg2/_review/docs/guide/bdqffdq/index.md#usecase (Paul and Arthur)

1. (Not an issue) Sophie Parmelon (p. 20 Line 710) Ontology file (to open with Protégé): https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/blob/master/tg2/_review/vocabulary/bdqffdq.owl (PJM): This appears to be just a link to the ontology in the review text, not an actionable item
2. Stephen Formel (p. 27 Line 1019) Section 3.2: This info is buried and should be elevated:
   1. We use the informal term "Test" to describe these four vertical themes, a Test involves terms in both Needs and Solutions, and Tests produce particular reporting elements. (PJM): Good point, call out more clearly. Looking at this document, it isn't buried, it is right up front in the introduction to the framework, and is called out again later in visuals. PJM note to @ArthurChapman and @Tasilee This seems to be a call to describe Tests as embodying vertical and horizontal concepts (from the Framework paper) at a higher level in the documentation, not just in this document. Lee: I see this issue as the focus of the 'BDQ Tests and Assertions' document', but it depends on the order you read the documentation, but this document is referenced early in the 'landing page' document (The Biodiversity Data Quality (BDQ) Standard).`
3. (Done) Stephen Formel (p. 27 Line 1024) Section 3.2.3 The diagrams are almost identical. Making identical nodes grayscale, or another mechanism should be used to make it easy for the reader to discern the differences between the figures. (PJM): The similarity is somewhat the point. Changed diagrams to use heavier weight lines to call out items that differ between the figures.
4. (Done) Stephen Formel (p. 27 Line 1028) Section 5.1 Should terms be in green according to the style guide? (PJM): Style guide? We don't have a convention for the use of colors in the text, just for camel case, upper case, etc, for vocabulary terms. This is perhaps coming from the caption of a diagram (in a different document) and thinking the convention used in that diagram is intended to be global instead of local? Addressed this by rewording the text to ind the bdqffdq landing page to deemphasise colors and call them out as local to that diagram.
5. (Addressed) @Tasilee and @ArthurChapman We notice that the Ontology Guide has a list of terms with definitions etc. and that these appear to be somewhat different to the definitions in the Ontology List of Terms (https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/blob/master/tg2/_review/docs/list/bdqffdq/index.md). [See for example UseCase]. Shouldn't these just be linked to the List of Terms rather than duplicated here? Especially where we are saying that there should only be one definitive definition for each term? (PJM): The problem is that the SDS specifies separate documents for the term list for an ontology and the additional axoims for that ontology, both of these are required, but as separate documents with separate IRIs. This means that to see all the ontology terms in one place a separate list in a separate document is needed, which means that duplication is necessary (but since the duplication is based on generated views off of a single underlying file (bdqffdq.owl), the duplication should be tolerable). The purpose of the term list in the ontology guide is to provide a single place to look at both the terms and the additional axioms on those terms.
6. (Done) @ArthurChapman Spelling error under Amendment - under Comments "Enhacement" should be "Enhancement" PJM: Not found in this document, but typo did occur in ContextualizedEnhacement, fixed in source.
7. (Done) @ArthurChapman Some information appears not to be being pulled in to the Ontology List of Terms; one of the terms in Section 3 (hasArgumentValue). And several in section 3.4 (COMPLIANT, EXTERNAL_PREREQUISTES_NOT_MET, FILLED_IN, INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET, NOT_COMPLIANT (PJM): Sparql queries in the code for building both the list of terms in the bdqffdq guide and in the bdqffdq term-list document needed OPTIONAL on rdfs:comment as that isn't present on all terms resulting in such terms being omitted. Also added code to extract missing additional axioms (which are statements of disjontness) in the combined terms and extensions list on the landing page and in the vocabulary extension document. (PJM): Fixed in commits that reference point 7 in this issue.