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

Re: Today's prov-o team telecon

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:39:30 +0200
Message-ID: <00700904-26E7-4A59-BABB-3B9443EB2958@vu.nl>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
I agree with Tim here. We can add more constraints using a richer language (DL) or we let people say things that we might not want them to say.

I should have thought about this before but ine thing I can do is check to see what fragment of OWL we can use that scales. 

Cheers
Paul

On Apr 12, 2012, at 1:15, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Luc (and any logic people),
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> Thanks, a question below.
>> 
>> On 11 Apr 2012, at 18:06, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Luc,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>> 
>>>> Can you clarify the implication of this resolution:
>>>>> hadActivity for a Responsibility (Agent->Agent) https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/226 ISSUE-226
>>>>> PROPOSE: relax domain of hadActivity so that a Responsibility can use it.
>>>>> Derivation -> Activity via prov:hadActivity
>>>>> RESOLVED: change prov:hadActivity domain from Derivation to Involvement.
>>>>> TODO: make clearer in the HTML how to use it. (in 3.3)
>>>> 
>>>> It now seems that we can have Attribution, Quotation, etc in the domain of hadActivity. This is not in line with DM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This will be a persistent tradeoff in RL, and I don't know how to resolve this kind of interpretation. It's simply not what the axioms say. The reasoning you use is incorrect.
>>> I've outlined the inferences that one can obtain with rdfs:domain before, and showed that there is not an inconsistency or an inference that does not make sense.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> prov:hadActivity rdfs:domain prov:Involvement .
>>> :s prov:hadActivity :a 
>>> --------
>>> :s a prov:Involvement
>>> 
>>> 
>>> this is different than saying:
>>> :q a prov:Quotation
>>> -------
>>> :q prov:hadActivity :activity
>>> 
>>> which is NOT derivable in the current ontology, but how you are interpreting it.
>>> A class being in the domain of a property does NOT imply that the class uses that property.
>>> 
>>> The axioms that you're thinking of are minCardinality 1 / someValuesFrom, etc., which WOULD imply that the class has the property.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Also, Generation is in the domain of both activity and hadActivity. Isn't this strange?
>>> 
>>> resources described with prov:activity are prov:ActivityInvolvements.
>>> resources described with prov:hadActivity are prov:Involvements .
>>> Being a subclass of either of these classes does not imply that you are described with either of these properties.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't it the case that the following statements are consistent with the ontology. 
>> 
>>  :g a Generation
>>    prov:activity :a1
>>    prov:hadActivity :a2
>> 
>> :q a Quotation
>>    prov:hadActivity :a2
>> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "consistent"?
> The only two logical inconsistencies (contradictions) that one can make using PROV-O are to multi-type a resource to be both an Entity and Activity, or both an EntityInvolvement and ActivityInvolvement. This is because these two pairs of classes are disjoint.
> Everything else is "fair game" - no logical inconsistencies will result with any other combination of properties and classes.
> 
> (anyone with a stronger logic background can feel free to correct me, or help me address Luc's concern)
> 
> I think that you're pointing out that we are implicitly assuming the classes to be disjoint without asserting it.
> I've avoided asserting too many disjoints in favor of simplicity (and knowing that users can assert it if they need it).
> 
> So, it's also "consistent" to say:
> 
> :g a prov:Generation;
>   prov:used [ a prov:Trace ];
>   prov:qualifiedTrace [ a prov:Entity ];
> .
> 
> Because the range of prov:used is not disjoint with prov:Trace, the range of prov:qualifiedTrace is not disjoint with prov:Entity,
> the domain of prov:used is not disjoint with prov:Generation, and the domain of prov:qualifiedTrace is not disjoint with prov:Generation.
> 
> I'm sure this isn't the answer you're looking for, but I'm not sure how to resolve your concern (using RL and avoiding an explosion of over constrained constructs).
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I just don't how to understand these, in terms of the DM.
> 
> 
> I agree. Having this combination does not make sense. But I don't know how to address it within RL.
> In DL, I could say a bunch. But since we're stuck in RL, we're left to only use out-of-band documentation for how the RL constructions _should_ be stitched together b/c we can't use the DL axioms that are needed to say how.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
>> 
>> Luc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>>> University of Southampton 
>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> 
>>>> On 9 Apr 2012, at 17:33, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> We had a quick meeting due to the UK holiday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-04-09
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, Paolo.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not a holiday on this side of the pond, but I took the day off myself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rest of prov-o, will you be joining?
>>>>>> Please email me directly if you'd rather keep this off list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> apologies, not joining, it's a UK holiday today (and I believe this is true at least of the rest of Europe?)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Paolo
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/9/12 3:30 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>>>>> prov-o team,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The agenda for today's telecon is at:
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-04-09#Agenda
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please be prepared to:
>>>>>>>> 1) raise topics from last week's feedback that the team should discuss during meeting
>>>>>>>> 2) discuss the ISSUEs listed on the agenda.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 06:10:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT