Create annotations for definitions generated by scripts

[wdduncan]

A number of definitions appear to be generated programmatically. In these cases, it is helpful to add an annotation to say which script and/or design pattern generated the definition.

[matentzn]

Absolutely all ECTO definitions are currently generated by DOSDP. I think this is a general community issue. Should ALL pattern generated definitions (logical or otherwise) get an axiom annotation pointing to the generating pattern?

A equivalent to R some C [generated by "purl/exposure.yaml"]
A rdfs:label "some name" [generated by "purl/exposure.yaml"]
A rdfs:comment "some comment" [generated by "purl/exposure.yaml"]

This will seriously bloat the ontology, but may be useful. Opinions, @cmungall @balhoff @dosumis?

[dosumis]

Should ALL pattern generated definitions (logical or otherwise) get an axiom annotation pointing to the generating pattern?

I think so. I always intended this to be the case. Main question is whether to annotate Class or axioms.

[matentzn]

Yeah agreed. Advantage of class would be: less bloating. disadvantage: In mixed modes (some stuff is generated, some is manually curated) you dont know what has been generated using the class solution. The axioms annotation solution is much more bloated, but can clearly distinguish generated vs non-generated ones (although even here there is a bit of a line, where the TSV files are used to manually create annotations .. are such annotations to be considered as "generated" by dosdp or not? :)