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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:55:56 -0500
Cc: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DE353AA-4C7F-4915-9496-7F7996966C6C@rpi.edu>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>

On Feb 23, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> prov:hadTemporalValue was renamed to prov:hadTemporalExtent in the current ontology.
> 
> prov:hadTemporalExtent
>       a       owl:ObjectProperty , owl:IrreflexiveProperty ;
>       rdfs:domain prov:Involvement ;
>       rdfs:label "had temporal extent"@en ;
>       rdfs:range prov:TimeInstant ;
>       rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage> .
> 
> Our intended range restriction does not match the general understood meaning of temporal extent, so I think we should change the name again.

Done. but Activities are durations, so prov:hadTemporalExtent could be applied there.
I could use some help on that (Stephan, Satya, Stian?)

> 
> 1) I propose renaming this property to occurredAt.
> 
> The property is currently Irreflexive, did we mean for it to be functional?

I added functional and kept irreflexive.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/31073049819f/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl


> 
> 2) I propose making the property Functional.

Done.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/31073049819f/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

> 
> For the domain, Association and Delegation are different from other Involvements in that they are not expected to have time information, is this because we do not view them as instantaneous events?


I'd be curious to hear an answer to this.


> 
> We don't have instantaneous event, or event, as a class in the ontology, but it is mentioned in the text of the DM on several occasions.  It seems that some involvements are viewed as events, and others are not.
> 
> An instantaneous event class would be a logical domain for occurredAt, and provide a means to separate those involvements we view as events (Generation, Usage, Start, etc)

Added Start and End to be subclasses of Timed.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/0318fa4959d1/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

> from those we do not (Association and Delegation).  I am not sure if such a class would be a subclass of Involvement or not.

I've advocated to keep it outside of Involvement. It aligns with your "logical domain of occurredAt" notion above and allows us to state which belong in that domain.

>  I would argue that some involvements are events, and not all events are involvements, so the classes should be kept separate in the heirarchy, but Generation, Usage, etc can be a subclass of both.

Done for Generation, Usage, Start, and End.

> 
> 3) I suggest discussing inclusion of a InstantaneousEvent class which will be the domain of occurredAt and a superclass to Involvements that have time information.


InstantaneousEvent is way better than "Timed". Done.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/f2e4afae422c/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl



> 
> --Stephan
> 
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 
>> 10.
>>>>> HadTemporalValue
>>>>> ---  is not functional
>>>> 
>>>> True, but this is a PROV-O issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Proposal: Re-raise against Prov-O.  No change needed to mapping.
>>>> 
>>>>> --- has QualifiedInvolvement in its domain but
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I see that it has a domain of owl:Thing.
>>> 
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>>> 
>>>    168     <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="hadTemporalValue">
>>>   
>>>    169         <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/>
>>>   
>>>    170         <rdfs:label xml:lang="en"
>>>   
>>>    171             >has temporal value</rdfs:label>
>>>   
>>>    172         <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&owl;Thing"/>
>>>   
>>>    173         <rdfs:range rdf:resource="Time"/>
>>>   
>>>    174     </owl:ObjectProperty>
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>> 
>> Which is too broad.
>> 
>> First, we need clarification as to whether DM will allow only Activity to be associated with Time?
> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 03:57:15 GMT

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