Re: Request for feedback: org/prov Organization relationship

Hi Paul,

Thanks very much for your response, very helpful.

I guess I would have regarded responsibility as being an aspect of the 
relationship between the Agent and the Activity rather than intrinsic to 
the Agent. So I would have expected that any org:Organization could act 
as a prov:Agent.  However, very happy to respect your view. I guess in 
principle there *could* be org:Organizations which cannot take 
responsibility for a prov:Activity.

Thanks again,
Dave

On 25/02/13 11:59, Paul Groth wrote:
> Dave,
>
> The semantics of prov:Organization is that it implies responsibility.
> Thus, prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Organization. We made a
> decision in the prov WG not to specify mappings within the main ontology
> and instead specify those in notes. Although we will not have time to
> specify a mapping to foaf.
>
> My view is that in some cases an org:Organization will also be a
> prov:Organization and other cases not. Thus the assertion that
> prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization is the is correct.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Dave Reynolds
> <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com <mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks again to the Provenance working group for feedback on the Last
>     Call version of the ORG ontology. We have separately responded to that
>     feedback.
>
>     While not part of that feedback, the GLD working has noted that PROV-O
>     contains a term prov:Organization [1] and feels that it would be
>     appropriate to clarify the relationship between that and
>     org:Organization [2].
>
>     The GLD working group is thus considering adding some formal assertion
>     of that relationship to the ORG ontology. We have two obvious choices.
>
>     (1) We could assert:
>
>            org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf  prov:Organization .
>
>     This would reinforce that any org:Organization may be treated as a
>     prov:Organization and used within provenance statements.
>
>     (2) We could assert more strongly that:
>
>            org:Organization owl:equivalentClass prov:Organization .
>
>     As far as we can tell the intention behind both classes is the same and
>     so this seems  reasonable. However, since ORG already states:
>
>            org:Organization owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization .
>
>     this would imply that prov:Organization is also equivalent to
>     foaf:Organization.  We note that PROV-O does not declare any
>     relationship to foaf and so are not sure if this entailment would be
>     regarded as problematic from your viewpoint.
>
>     Please may we have your comment on whether either of (1) or (2) seem
>     appropriate to you and which would be preferred.
>
>     Thanks and best wishes,
>     Dave
>
>     [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Organization
>     [2]
>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:Organization
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>    Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 13:36:12 UTC