Missing inverse relationship in ontology

[simphony]

Missing inverse relationship in ontology

[pablo-de-andres]

In GitLab by @urbanmatthias on Sep 16, 2019, 06:43

I can not open the Image.

By Matthias Urban on 2019-09-16T04:43:53 (imported from GitLab project)

[pablo-de-andres]

In GitLab by @urbanmatthias on Sep 13, 2019, 11:37

Relates to #55

By Pablo de Andres on 2019-09-13T09:37:15 (imported from GitLab project)

[pablo-de-andres]

In GitLab by @urbanmatthias on Sep 13, 2019, 11:32

I would say that inverse is not required, but when one way is stated, the other way should also be explicitly written. If not, an exception might be raised.
This way consistency is more important, and we avoid issues like:

  @startuml
    (entityA) -> (entityB): inverse
    (entityB) -> (entityC): inverse
    (entityC) -> (entityD): inverse
    (entityD) -> (entityC): inverse
  @enduml

By Pablo de Andres on 2019-09-13T09:32:20 (imported from GitLab project)

[pablo-de-andres]

In GitLab by @yoavnash on Oct 25, 2019, 13:45

Possible solution: always create an inverse relation (which can be hidden from the user)

[pablo-de-andres]

In GitLab by @urbanmatthias on Nov 11, 2019, 14:10

closed