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: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:06:13 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0ea01352d2d67c161397d346d57ca574o3G96G08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F8D2475.1090906@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

Yes, it would make a lot of sense to introduce a prov:value attribute.
It also makes sense that you would want reuse existing rdf mechanisms to 
express the same notion.

Luc

On 04/16/2012 04:35 PM, Timothy Lebo 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
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
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 Tuesday, 17 April 2012 08:06:54 GMT

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