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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:15:06 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c7c7cb270513ac1a7e3b4d595dc5830co1LAFA08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F44C02A.1010907@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Stian, it works now, I try to upgrade soon.
Luc

On 02/22/2012 09:25 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> it seems Protege 4.0 is trying to parse the ontology as OWL 1.1 (a
> never released precursor to OWL 2.0) - and therefore is looking for
> owl:subject etc. inside owl axioms. In OWL 2 these are
> owl:annotatedSource etc.
>
> Protege 4.1 and later are fully OWL 2.0 compatible (and can translate
> the old forms).
>
>
> I've disabled the axiom on wasEndedBy that caused this issue - it was
> this piece:
>
>      <owl:Axiom>
>          <rdfs:comment>TODO justify</rdfs:comment>
>          <owl:annotatedProperty rdf:resource="&rdfs;subPropertyOf"/>
>          <owl:annotatedTarget
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociatedWith"/>
>          <owl:annotatedSource
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasEndedBy"/>
>      </owl:Axiom>
>
>
> .. but as Protege 4.0 could insert non-valid OWL statements I
> recommend to not use it. :-)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:10, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> There is a bug if you use Protege 4.0 - 4.1 should work.
>>
>> I'm investigating now what is wrong in 4.0.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:08, Luc Moreau<l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>      
>>> All, I can no longer load the ontology in Protege. Can you check it's all
>>> OK?
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/02/2012 09:01, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46, Khalid Belhajjame
>>>> <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> We decided to model only wasStartedBy that involves an agent. So that I
>>>>> think, we can safely define Start as a sub-class of Association.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> So something like in
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting_again ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if I like this - here the involvement is both a
>>>> prov:Start and prov:Inform at the same time - and a phantom agent ?ag1
>>>> is introduced.
>>>>
>>>> .. or we simply say that Starting_again is not mapped to RDF?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Wednesday, 22 February 2012 10:15:41 GMT

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