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

Re: prov-wg: Another name for Qualified?

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:28:31 -0500
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <86C42B35-2314-45F0-8446-3A9A33998CDB@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Feb 18, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2012, at 01:03, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> 
>>> It parses Asn, generates XML, json, and rdf (partially, sine yesterday)
>> 
>> Cool. What's the best way to get started with the toolbox?
>> How to run it, etc.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I will create a command line executable and readme next week.

I look forward to trying it out.

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> I'd ask someone else to start the ASN collection, since I failed to get traction the first time around.
>>>> Apparently my organization wasn't intuitive.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think you were ahead of us,  we are just catching Up. Maybe you could explain again your structure and how we should use it.
>> 
>> 
>> My explanation has been at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components#Example_instance_data
>> perhaps someone could review and provide feedback?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Will do that too.
> 

Thanks.

>> 
>>>>>> In particular, I'm concerned about situations where prov:entity references the subject of the qualified involvement, because it would break the underlying guidance from rdf:Statement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it possible to have prov:entity refer to the subject? Revisions? qualified derivations? I've said this before, but I hope it isn't possible because some Activity should be used instead.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Isn't the class  Involvement too broad in its current form?
>>>>> Shouldn't the pattern be reused under a different name for
>>>>> Entity-entity relations and activity-activity relations?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I very much like this suggestion.
>>>> By "too broad in its current form", do you mean the 1) OWL axioms defining it, 2) its use, or 3) its naming?
>>>> 
>>>> I've had the following in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/8c14d0798b20/ontology/components/QualifiedInvolvement.ttl since Dec 02 2011
>>>> 
>>> I was not familiar with this file.  It's not part of the provOntology.owl file :-(
>> 
>> 
>> Victim of design by committee :-/
>> 
>> 
> 
> Is there a plan to align the owl file with your component approach?

No, it didn't get traction.
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components

> Coming back to Ivan's comment, is it an RL profile?

At this point, it's my running version-controlled notes on what I think the axioms should be.


> 
> 
>>> 
>>> This starts to make more sense to me, now, thanks!
>>> 
>>> So , to check if understand, would you see prov:Inform ( I think it's the class for wasInformedBy property) to be a subclass of ActivityInvolvement?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yup! I've added that to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/739984da9cbe/ontology/components/Involvement.ttl
>> 
>> 
> 
> It seems that 'subclass activityInvolvement' stayed in your keyboard ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out.
I pried it out of the keyboard and placed into the file.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/3505d506d5aa/ontology/components/Involvement.ttl


-Tim
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 17:29:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT