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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-222 (used-objectproperty): Datatype property for used? [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:18:35 -0400
Message-Id: <50C8A3E3-9863-4BE5-A921-BB29343DD008@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paul (and Graham),

The prov-o team discussed this last week and agreed that this topic is more appropriate in the best practices document.
We also outlined the recommended patterns.

I put a stub entry at 

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1a7d883e143e/bestpractices/BestPractices.html#using-strings

that says:

* If you want to break RL and any tools built around PROV-O, just use a string.
* If you want to follow the datatype/objectproperty distinction, use a resource with rdf:value OR
* use content in rdf http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/

1)
Can we move this issue to the best practices product?
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/7

2)
Can you put a "string-heavy" example into http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_examples to motivate further development of the best practice?

3)
Can we close ISSUE-248 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/248 as a duplicate of this issue? 


On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Paul,
> 
> This problem is, IMO, an atifact of the arguably arbitrary restrictions of description logic and OWL-DL.  If you don't need to be consrainted to OWL-DL then the problem does not arise.  Just saying.

The problem does arise practically, too. If the range of prov:used is a rdfs:Resource, then tools will handle it as such (and not a string).
So tools will choke while reading your account, even if they don't care about reasoning.


> 
> Staying with the object/datatype property distinction, I think either of your suggested approaches can work, but I don't know about semantics of entity here - it seems to me that it should be possoible to formulate the semantics around two properties as well as one, even if the formulation is more complex.


> 
> The second approach avoids the semantic uncertainties at the costof some added complexity in RDF representation.


@Graham, could you elaborate this approach, so that we can articulate it in the best practices document?

Thanks,
Tim



> 
> I'm not sure this helps :(
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> On 18/01/2012 09:40, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>> PROV-ISSUE-222 (used-objectproperty): Datatype property for used? [Ontology]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/222
>> 
>> Raised by: Paul Groth
>> On product: Ontology
>> 
>> Currently, prov-o:used is defined as an objectproperty. This is fine. However, we've be doing some modeling here at the VU where the parameter to a program is a string. Currently, this is not modelled using a prov-o:used edge but it seems like it should be. Is there anyway we can support this?
>> 
>> My first inclination is to define a corresponding datatype property but this make break the semantics of entity...
>> 
>> Another option might be to suggest using a blank node with the string attached using an application specific predicate.
>> 
>> Suggestions?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 13:19:09 GMT

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