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 15:53:03 -0400
Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <A82191D6-1A18-4EE2-A410-CF12557FE63B@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Thanks, Paul.

Will it go to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_examples 

:-)

-Tim

On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi All 
> 
> Since I raised the issue, let me get an example up ... I think it will be a no brainer to solve just really need a good place to put application specific descriptions for example command line arguments.
> 
> Example coming tomorrow
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 19:45, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> While rdf:value is recognized by tools, it has no defined meaning on its own (according to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value).
>> 
>> Thanks for pointing this out.
>> "rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used in describing structured values."
>> is NOT how rdf:value has come to be used in the wild.
>> 
>> Funny that the example that they cite doesn't use rdf:value …. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#example16
>> 
>> So then I'd propose we make prov:value a DatatypeProperty and provide a better definition than what the RDF spec provided.
>> 
>> 
>>>  I also believe direct usage without restricting its type to owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty also puts an ontology into OWL Full.
>> 
>> Another huge reason to define our own :-)
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> But we want string activities as well?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That's impossible. (and one says that, it means they should make an axiom…. prov:value rdfs:domain prov:Entity (which is disjoint with Activity))
>>>> But worth it's weight of another property?
>>> 
>>> It seems to me we are conflating simple descriptions of activities and entities with the actual activity and entity resource.
>> 
>> I agree that this conflation is bad, but I can't say that I'm seeing it.
>> Perhaps it's because there isn't an example on this issue yet.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Why not just have an annotation that provides a human-readable description of the activity or entity?
>>> 
>>> To replace Activity/Entity individuals with string descriptions of said individuals would be a mistake.
>> 
>> +100
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> --Stephan
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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 19:54:37 GMT

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