Re: PROV-ISSUE-265 (TLebo): RL, why? [Ontology]

None of these require OWL-Full, and are well within DL. I haven't had
trouble reasoning over these sorts of restrictions with data in place.

Jim

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Here's an example of 'tacking on' OWL Full-level restrictions:
>
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntologyFull.owl
>
> (It is not complete!)
>
> * All 'structural' subclasses have superclasses like:
>
>
>
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&prov;Element">
>        <rdfs:subClassOf>
>            <owl:Class>
>                <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&prov;Activity"/>
>                    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&prov;Entity"/>
>                </owl:unionOf>
>            </owl:Class>
>        </rdfs:subClassOf>
>    </rdf:Description>
>
> (ie. you can't make your own prov:Element which is not an Activity or
> Entity)
>
>
> Adding wasInvolvedBy as inverse of prov:involved, this is used to say
> for instance:
>
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="&prov;Derivation">
>        <rdfs:subClassOf>
>            <owl:Restriction>
>                <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-full#wasInvolvedBy"/>
>                <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="&prov;Entity"/>
>            </owl:Restriction>
>        </rdfs:subClassOf>
>    </rdf:Description>
>
> ie. if :x prov:involved [ a prov:Derivation ] then :x must be an Entity.
>
> This would solve Luc's issue with entity using entities.
>
>
>
> However this brought up an interesting issue.. when reasoning over
> this, prov:Involvement becomes a prov:Element (ie. an activity or
> entity) - because it is in the range of prov:involved which also has
> range prov:Element.
>
> So Tim, what were you intending with this unified prov:involved ?  We
> can easily make it work by making prov:Involvement the third Element.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 08:53, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > Hi Graham,
> >
> > I really invite you to go back to the minutes of F2F1 and resolution
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-07#resolution_6
> >
> > The requirement has always been there, but has not been enforced, till
> > Ivan made it clear again that it is of critical importance to adoption.
> >
> > We are seeing that creating a "useful" ontology without taking
> > this requirement into account makes it hard to "retrofit it" later.
> >
> > Useful ontology, yes, but please with this requirement in mind.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Luc
> >
> >
> > On 02/24/2012 06:20 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that the RL "requirement" is a *way* lesser issue than
> having
> > a basic model that is easy to generate.
> >
> > My suggestion would be push ahead with a "useful" ontology that captures
> a
> > fair richness of provenance, and then later consider what could be traded
> > off for RL compatibility.  But I do feel that expending significant
> effort
> > on RL compatibility rather than focusing on an usefully descriptive
> ontology
> > will probably be counter-productive at this stage.
> >
> > In my experience, a substantial use of OWL ontologies is for
> documentation
> > and testing purposes, not as part of a live application (though I
> suppose RL
> > aims to change that?).
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > On 24/02/2012 04:18, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >
> > PROV-ISSUE-265 (TLebo): RL, why? [Ontology]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/265
> >
> > Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> > On product: Ontology
> >
> > The very recent and very hard constraint to ensure that PROV-O remains at
> > OWL-RL expressivity is adding a lot of complication to the PROV-O team's
> > ability to complete the ontology. VERY common restrictions that have been
> > around for almost a decade and which provide a lot of insight are NOT
> > permitted in OWL-RL.
> >
> > From what I understand, we should stay with OWL-RL so that "it stays
> simple
> > and people will adopt it". Which people, exactly, will refuse to encode
> RDF
> > if the corresponding ontology is more expressive than OWL-RL?
> >
> >
> > I called in when Ivan discussed this at F2F2, and I did NOT get the
> > impression that the rest of the group now seems to have. He seemed to be
> > advocating for the "scruffies", which we had recently named in the
> meeting.
> > Linked Data is the new direction for the semantic web, and that community
> > could not care less about OWL expressivity. RDF and SPARQL rule the day.
> > There are no OWL reasoners to be found.
> >
> > I consider myself a member of the Linked Data community, but I also
> happen
> > to appreciate a well designed OWL ontology. The Linked Data community
> thinks
> > in terms of classes and predicates. All they care about is which
> properties
> > lead from which classes and head to which other classes. That's it. Give
> > them some examples and they're off running. Oh, and make your URIs
> > dereferenceable.
> >
> > So I don't think that the Linked Data community is going to ignore
> PROV-DM
> > based on its OWL profile.
> >
> > Are we trying to satisfy some _other_ community? If so, who are they, how
> > many of them are there, what do they do, and what do they like?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu