Re: PROV comments from Clark&Parsia

Dear Evren,

Thanks for your response and acknowledgement of our comments. We looked at
your comment about the justification for why particular inferences are
included in PROV-O and others are not (see below).

We have prepared a response, which you can find at:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617

We hope this addresses your concern. It would be great if you could
acknowledge our response indicating whether it does and if not what the
remaining concern is.

Thanks again for your work and we hope to be able to include Stardog in our
implementation report!

Regards
Paul




>
> > - ISSUE-611 (comments on prov-o)
>
> Our comment was not regarding encoding of the constraints in OWL
> (which is not possible to do completely anyway) but about encoding the
> inferences in OWL. Right now, it looks like some of the inferences
> from PROV Constraints document is included in PROV-O. Specifically,
> Inference 15 (influence-inference) [1] and Inference 20
> (specialization-alternate-inference) [2] are included in PROV-O as
> subPropertyOf axioms. But other inferences defined in this document
> are not included in PROV-O which is a little confusing. For example,
> Inference 12 (revision-is-alternate-inference) [3] suggests another
> subPropertyOf relation (wasRevisionOf subPropertyOf alternateOf) but
> this is not in PROV-O. If the WG chooses to encode some of the
> inferences in PROV-O but not others, we would like to understand the
> rationale behind this decision.
>
>

--
Dr. Paul Groth (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