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

Re: PROVO-O in QUDT

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:07:02 -0500
Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <D8447850-47FB-4CE9-9917-A0AEF331430A@rpi.edu>
To: "Ralph TQ [Gmail]" <rhodgson@topquadrant.com>
Ralph,

On Nov 4, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:

> Tim,
> 
> I consider both properties, prov:wasInfluencedBy and prov:wasInformedBy, semantically close.  Colloquially, one states that something was 'informed by" something else.



> In QUDT we want to say what guided or even contributed wholesale to a unit description.

Got it.


> The domain and range of prov:wasInformedBy are both prov:Activity, whereas in QUDT, I am clearly speaking of an (abstract) Entity.

Agreed.


>  If were were to run an inference Units would become Activities.  To avoid this incorrect inference, we need to use prov:wasInfluencedBy.


What about prov:wasDerivedFrom? 
Its domain and range is Entity. 
Here, your subject Entity is a unit description and it was derived from (what appears to be) parts of a web page from which you took some information.

Does that work for you?


> But that, to my way of thinking, has weaker semantics.

You're right. "weaker" in the sense that its domain and range are "any" of the main three PROV classes.


> Albeit a small point but a source of confusion that can lead to wrong inferences.

You're right to look at the inferences that follow, but I think the fix is in finding a sibling of wasInformedBy that suits your Entity derivations.

Regards,
Tim


> 
> 
> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
> Mobile Phone: +1 781-789-1664
> 
> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
> 
> 
> On Nov 4, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Ralph,
>> 
>> Thanks for your comment regarding the confusion between wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy.
>> 
>> As you point out in your email and in your diagram, wasInformedBy is a restricted sub property of wasInfluencedBy.
>> 
>> Could you elaborate on what can be "easily confused"?
>> 
>> You mention that you notice the confusion when extending PROV-O with your ontology. Could you provide an example that helps highlight the confusion?
>> 
>> Finally, do you have any suggestions for what the working group can do to clarify the distinction between the two properties?
>> 
>> Thanks for your help. We're happy to make changes to the documents, we just need to know a bit more about what we need to address.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> p.s. We've assigned your comment to the issue https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> PROVO-O properties prov:wasInfluencedBy and prov:wasInformedBy are easily confused. We notice this when we are describing what has 'informed' what in descriptions and other assertions in QUDT. 
>>> 
>>> The diagram below, from TopBraid, shows the schema associated with these properties.  prov:wasInformedBy has a restricted domain and range over its super-property prov:wasInfluencedBy. Perhaps the rationale for this is somewhere in the working group postings?
>>> 
>>> <Screen Shot 2012-11-02 at 9.59.31 AM.png>
>>> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
>>> 
>>> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:07:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:07:29 GMT