W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > January 2013

Re: prov-o rec confusion

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:50:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrdDrkD5Kr9349BCm0ebXoQGvx7JiYtgNc2Qb+Le9WVCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Dear Kerry,

First, thanks for your interest in using PROV.

The working group has looked at your comment and attempted to address your
issue. You can find our response below. We diveded your issue into two
parts: the transitivity of derivation and encoding constraints in owl. You
can also find an official record in the linked page.

I hope this answers your concern. It would be great if you could
acknowledge this response, letting us know whether it did or not.

Thanks
Paul


ISSUE-612 (Transitivity of
Derivation)<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-612_.28Transitivity_of_Derivation.29>

   - Group Response
      - In this answer, we just focus on the transitivity of Derivation. We
      leave the issue of transitivity of other relations to the next answer,
      which deals with the broad issue of encoding of constraints in OWL.
      - The Working Group could not reach consensus on the transitivity of
      derivation.
      - While it is recognized that in some cases specific notions of
      derivation can be regarded as transitive, there are examples in
which this
      property does not obviously hold.
      - Given this, the group has decided not define wasDerivedFrom as a
      transitive relation.
      - If users need a notion of transitive derivation, they are invited
      to define a subproperty of prov:wasDerivedFrom that is transitive
   - References:
      - ISSUE-56: discussion on transitivity of derivation:
      http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/56
      - Example where transitivity does not obviously hold:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0191.html
      - Early proposal of derivation as non-transitive:
      https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/65fcb3f7c34f/model/working-copy/wd5/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
      - Group resolution:
      http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-08#resolution_1


ISSUE-612 (Encoding of Constraints in
OWL)<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-612_.28Encoding_of_Constraints_in_OWL.29>

   - Original email:
      -
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0005.html
      -
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0000.html
   - Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612
   - Group Response
      - In a prior resolution (
      http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-06#resolution_4), the
      working group decided that the group itself would not encode
constraints in
      prov-o OWL or any Semantic Web technologies.
      - The group wants to ensure that provenance expressed using prov-o
      can be "scruffy".
      - Implementations of the constraints using Semantic Web technologies
      are encouraged.
      - The working group would consider hosting an implementation in OWL
      provided by an outside party.





On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> All:
>
> Below you'll find comments from Kerry Taylor on prov-o.
>
> Again the issue seems to be the encoding of constraints in prov-o.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:30 AM
> Subject: prov-o rec confusion
> To: pgroth@gmail.com
>
>
> Hi Paul,
> I am working on an "application" for the recommendation of prov-o, and I
> am confused. I'm also not sure who to address this query/comment to --
> please feel free to forward as you consider appropriate.
>
> All the transitive characteristics of properties (such as wasDerivedFrom)
> seem to have disappeared from an earlier version of prov-o  I was working
> with previously. I can't find any explanation for this, and am doubly
> confused by this following extract from the  on the  candidate rec prov-o
> spec (this is only an example in the spec, but it refers to asymmetric and
> irreflexive characteristics  that have also disappeared).
>
> "prov:wasDerivedFrom
>    a owl:AsymmetricProperty, owl:IrreflexiveProperty, owl:ObjectProperty;
>    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>;
>    prov:inverse     "hadDerivation";
>    rdfs:domain  prov:Entity;
>    rdfs:range   prov:Entity;"
>
> I have the impression that the functionality has been devolved instead to
> the (more expressive)
> "Constraints of the PROV Data Model", perhaps due to the pressure to be
> OWL-RL compliant?
>
> I would really like to see this brought back to PROV-O somehow.
> Maybe a separate prov-o module declaring these things could be  developed
> and  optionally imported if desired. (The missing inverse properties could
> also be handled the same way).
>
> Kerry
>
>

-- 
--
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
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 09:50:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 January 2013 09:50:48 GMT