W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > November 2012

Re: prov:supersededBy missing? (was Re: PROVO-O in QUDT)

From: Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:14:41 -0800
Cc: pgroth@gmail.com, "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8D48CA2C-3FB0-4547-A1AC-2DB1925FB215@topquadrant.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Tim,

In my view, 'invalidated' has different semantics to 'supersedes/superseded'.

Besides domain and range restrictions may rule it out.

Noticed that inverse property assertion is not stated on one of the properties.
Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq

Mobile Phone: +1 781-789-1664

CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant

Blog: Voyages of the Semantic Enterprise

Newspapers: SPARQL, SemanticWeb, LinkedData





On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Ralph,
> 
> I forgot to mention, have you looked at PROV's invalidation?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#invalidated
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120724/Overview.html#term-Invalidation
> 
> It carries some of the "no longer valid" notion that you describe.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim Lebo
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:08 PM, "Ralph TQ [Gmail]" <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> I think the semantics of 'supersededBy' are different to 'wasRevisionOf'. When something is superseded it no longer should be referred to. Whereas when something is a revision of something else all versions my still be valid. We see this in many document-centric environments. For example at NASA, a specification for telemetry and commanding of vehicles existed in a number of concurrently valid revisions (REV A, REV B, etc.).  Each revision having justification in specific contexts-of-use. Moreover 'supersedes' and 'supersededBy' are very commonly used at W3C.
>> 
>> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
>> 
>> Mobile Phone: +1 781-789-1664
>> 
>> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
>> 
>> Blog: Voyages of the Semantic Enterprise
>> 
>> Newspapers: SPARQL, SemanticWeb, LinkedData
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>> 
>>> Would wasRevisionOf be of use? We do not have supersedes.
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> When a unit in QUDT is superseded by another we use a property, voag:supersededBy, from the VOAG ontology.  I could not find a corresponding property in the PROV ontology.
>>> 
>>> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
>>> 
>>> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
>>> 
>>> Blog: Voyages of the Semantic Enterprise
>>> 
>>> Newspapers: SPARQL, SemanticWeb, LinkedData
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 19:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 19:15:12 GMT