W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:22:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DdjcuUJYQX1oq+L9zdPs29GcofR0z=ti_9TmA6yZkVEPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org, stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk
Hi all,
this issue is now pending review.
Stephen, if you still have concerns about the directionality of the edges,
could you please provide an example at [1]?.
If not, I would suggest to close this issue.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:PROV_example

2012/3/4 Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

> I would hope this is a non-issue.  E.g. property paths in SPARQL include
> provision for including inverse properties that are not explicitly defined:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-**query/#propertypaths<http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths>
> (I guess this is just a reminder, but the "direction" of RDF properties
> places no technical constraint on accessibility - one can, in principle
> (and in practice with most triple stores) traverse a property backwards as
> easily as forwards.  Any need for explicit inverse properties is almost
> entirely for human consumption (and authoring), and their absence shouldn't
> constrain applications in any way.  Indeed, defining inverse properties is
> more likely to create problems of incompatibility by introducing different
> ways to express the same assertion.)
> #g
> --
> On 03/03/2012 16:28, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains [Ontology]
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/277<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/277>
>> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
>> On product: Ontology
>> During our group telecon, someone (Stephen Cresswell?) mentioned a
>> concern that the directionality of some properties in prov-o would inhibit
>> the use of property chains.
>> Although "directionality" can be handled with owl:inverses, we are not
>> including many inverses in prov-o for brevity (however, we are maintaining
>> a component at [1]). Although "anyone" can define their own inverse of a
>> prov-o property to achieve their property chains, this will inhibit
>> interoperability.
>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**file/tip/ontology/components/**
>> inverses.ttl<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components/inverses.ttl>
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 19:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC