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

[owl changed] Re: PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:39 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CBA76981-7F41-43D6-B7A7-9A23E95C7627@rpi.edu>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Thanks, Stephan,

To help clarify, I added an editorialNote:

The multiple rdfs:domain assertions are intended. One is simpler and works for OWL-RL, the union is more specific but is not recognized by OWL-RL.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/69f3bc010459

-Tim

On Apr 26, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> Thanks Tim!
> 
> I will close the issue.
> 
> --Stephan
> 
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 
>> Stephan,
>> 
>> On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>>> PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/367
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Stephan Zednik
>>> On product: Ontology
>>> 
>>> 1) There are two domains defined for prov:hadActivity
>>> 
>>> - prov:Involvement
>>> - the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility
>>> 
>>> from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain
>>> 
>>> Where a property P has more than one rdfs:domain property, then the resources denoted by subjects of triples with predicate P are instances of all the classes stated by the rdfs:domain properties.
>> 
>> Agreed. Both domains hold for all subjects that use the property.
>> The simpler domain is for RL compatibility, and the union is for RL++ use.
>> They do not contradict.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> From what I can tell this means the domain is the intersection of prov:Involvement with the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility, which is just the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility since both are subclasses of prov:Involvement.
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) annotations on prov:hadActivity
>>> 
>>> - it appears that the domain has been relaxed to be a union of Derivation and Responsibility, so I think we can remove the prov:todo annotation
>> 
>> done
>> 
>>> 
>>> - The rdfs:comment is currently "The activity generating the the derived entity and using the derived-from entity".  I think this should be updated to reflect the relaxed domain.  What does it mean when a qualified Responsibility hadActivity?
>>> 
>> 
>> DM says:
>> 
>> derivation:
>> activity: an optional identifier (a) for the activity using and generating the above entities;
>> 
>> invalidation:
>> activity: an optional identifier for the activity that invalidated the entity;
>> 
>> responsibility:
>> activity: an optional identifier (a) of an activity for which the responsibility link holds;
>> 
>> 
>> PROV-O comment was:
>> 
>> The activity generating the derived entity and using the derived-from entity.
>> 
>> PROV-O comment changed to:
>> 
>> Optional: The Activity that is part of the Involvement, which used, generated, invalidated, or was the responsibility of some Entity.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 15:18:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 15:18:19 GMT