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 13:15:05 -0400
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <3F05C379-870A-475A-A5DD-5A2596986E67@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> prov:value can specialize rdf:value ( and standards say so), but for is it would not really add any meaning beyond anything given by its domain (say prov:Entity).
> 

I don't see the need to mirror it when rdf:value works just fine and already recognized by so many tools.

> But we want string activities as well?
> 
> 

That's impossible. (and one says that, it means they should make an axiomů. prov:value rdfs:domain prov:Entity (which is disjoint with Activity))
But worth it's weight of another property?


> We should be careful not to overlap rdfs:label...
> 
> 

Who proposed using rdfs:label?
Agreed, this should be left out of the discussion.

-Tim




> On Apr 16, 2012 4:36 PM, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> That makes sense. Would you life to reserve prov:value?
> PROV-O will not define prov:value in favor of rdf:value.
> I think the rest of the PROV-O solution (content in RDF vocab) would fall outside of DM's control, as we've done before.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> > 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 17:15:55 GMT

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