W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-84 (namespace-for-properties): What should namespace for properties be? [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm+0TX4=Gk6mBUiXakCKJX6T8D7TTRm26Npk4bsSc1dWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 15:59, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:

> That is an error - I have updated the example on the repository with "po"
> namespaces for the "isGeneratedBy", "isControlledBy", "isDerivedFrom", and
> "Used".

Should po: then also be used in most of the properties of
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RDF_Graph_for_Crime_File_Scenario
?


>>I was hoping to see <po:isGeneratedBy> (and similarly for other relations)
>> so that the resulting >RDF is intelligible by applications that are not owl
>> aware.
> I did not understand this point - applications that process RDF
> representation but are not "OWL aware"?

I guess Luc assumed that the Crime File authors had subclassed
properties like po:isGeneratedBy - anyone receiving their instances
would then need to perform OWL reasoning over the crime ontology to
recognize these specialised properties. Ideally our OWL ontology
should be usable "out of the box" also as a vocabulary for "plain
RDF".

But this raises a question - if someone *does* create such
subproperties and use those, which would be perfectly fine by OWL -
would they then be in any way 'lesser' compliant, or would their
representation have to somewhat be classified as OWL RDF instead of
just RDF?






-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 10:48:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT