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

Re: PROVO-O in QUDT

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:06:17 -0500
Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <37088731-366B-4877-A6C7-305BB83B3E35@rpi.edu>
To: "Ralph TQ [Gmail]" <rhodgson@topquadrant.com>
Ralph,

Thanks again for your feedback regarding the PROV-O ontology.
To help avoid confusion for future readers, we've added comments on the Influence class hierarchy and the wasInfluencedBy property hierarchy within both the OWL and HTML documents. These comments encourage the use of more specific forms of the relation. As you pointed out, you shifted to using "wasInfluencedBy" instead of "wasInformedBy" to avoid "incorrect" domain/range inferences. The WG hopes that the comments would have lead you to use wasDerivedFrom based on the domain and ranges that your use cases required.

A summary of our response is listed at

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-592_.28wasInformedBy_confusing_with_wasInfluencedBy.29

Does this help address your concern?

Regards,
Tim

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 Monday, 19 November 2012 18:06:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 November 2012 18:06:43 GMT