Challenge 01: Are the ontology diff primitives truly atomic?
The assignment
Section titled “The assignment”We defined 9 atomic operations + 4 recognized composites (also called ontology diff primitives) as the mathematical foundation for describing structural changes to ontologies.
Your job: break them.
What to investigate
Section titled “What to investigate”-
Find a real-world ontology change that can’t be expressed as a sequence of our 9 atoms. If you can, the set is incomplete. Check: MITRE ATT&CK revocations, NIST CSF 1.1→2.0 restructure, ICD-10→ICD-11 medical taxonomy, NAICS industry code revisions.
-
Are any of the 9 actually composite? We split “node relabeling” into id_changed / properties_changed / type_changed. Is that the right decomposition? Could “id_changed” actually be “node_removed + node_added with same properties”? What are the implications of each decomposition?
-
What about operations on the GRAPH ITSELF (not nodes/edges)? Renaming a framework, changing its version identifier, merging two entire frameworks. Are these covered?
-
Hypergraph and multi-typed edge cases. Our primitives assume simple directed graphs. What breaks when you have: edges connecting 3+ nodes, multiple edge types between the same pair, self-loops, weighted edges?
-
Compare against the formal literature. The research log references Bunke 1983, Ehrig 2006, Chawathe 1996. Are there MORE RECENT papers (2020+) that define different or better operation sets?
Context to read first
Section titled “Context to read first”What success looks like
Section titled “What success looks like”Either: a proof that our set IS complete for our use case (with edge cases documented), or: a specific counterexample that forces us to revise the set.