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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7920ca47df358023a00ff9bd732e07c2o3FFnw08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F8C3191.3040801@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org, Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Hi Tim,

Just a word to say that it's a problem that is not specific to the ontology.
The problem is similar in other serializations.
Should we have a statement about this in the dm?
Luc

On 04/16/2012 02:18 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>      
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 14:50:48 GMT

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