Missing Definition and non-Aristotelian Definitions

[CarterBeauBenson]

Describe the bug
Many classes are missing definitions. Some of the classes that do have definitions, like "soil or plant scientist" are non-Aristotelian, meaning they are not in the form "b is a c that d's" where b is the class defined, c is the parent class to which b belongs, and d is the differentiating feature from sibling classes.

Expected behavior
Add definitions where they are missing and correct non-Aristotelian definitions.

Screenshots
If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your problem.

Desktop (please complete the following information):

• OS: Windows
• Browser: chrome
• Version: 1.0.65

Additional context
I am John's research assistant. He asked me to look over the OWL file.

[zhengj2007]

@CarterBeauBenson Thanks for pointing it out.

We are working on the definitions of terms. According to OBO dashboard checking, missing definition is warning rather than error. see: Robot report

[giacomodecolle]

@zhengj2007 I have started working on making the skills and ability definitions into the Aristotelian format. What would be the best way to offer this as contribution, is it by modifying the .owl file? I remember you mentioned that you might have preferred another way of doing so.

[zhengj2007]

@giacomodecolle I wrote a wiki page describing how to edit the OccO, https://github.com/Occupation-Ontology/OccO/wiki/OccO-Editing. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Besides, it's better to make the changes in a new branch and create pull request. Thanks!