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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:19:05 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|bff463798e903328b06818da90e1ea03o1QDJB08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F4B82C9.2030607@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi,

To illustrate a possible split I have created:
- prova.owl
and
-provb.owl
in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/8b2302508d86/ontology/working-dir

It's not complete at all, it focuses on Usage/Generation/Derivation.
Time and Role have not been encoded.
The structure-related classes appear in provb.owl, which imports prova.owl

I believe that object properties and classes in prova.owl can be mapped 
back to prov-dm.

Cheers,

Luc

On 24/02/2012 09:45, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/268
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Ontology
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> For the record, I made a suggestion to Khalid yesterday, and it would be good if the prov-o team could consider it.
>
> The details are not fully worked out, and I am sure lots of variants are possible.
>
> The essence is to consider two separate ontologies:
> - one minimalistic, a simple vocabulary, in which we allow (more or less) the same expressivity as in PROV-DM
> - the other, more extensive, which provides a structure to the vocabulary, introduce super-classes and super-relations, has property chains, has more complex constraints.
>
> For the purpose of this email, I call them prov and provs (for structure)
>
> I believe this would address multiple concerns
> - ISSUE-262, ISSUE-263: some of the more permissive assertions would be in provs not in prov. For me this solves the alignment issue.
>
> - ISSUE-265: prov only is required to be OWL-RL (I think it could even be RDFS). provs does not have to be restricted by any specific profile.
>
> Concretely, in the email to Khalid
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0413.html,
> I suggested the following
>
>
> :a1 a prov:Activity
>     prov:used :e1
>     prov:usage [a Usage
>                         prov:usedEntity  :e1
>                         prov:usedTime t]
>
>
> Then, in prov-s (s for structure)
>
>
>    prov:usedEntity subPropertyOf provs:entity
>    prov:Usage subclassOf provs:EntityInvolvement
>    prov:usedTime subRelationOf provs:hadTemporalExtent
>    provs:entity domain: provs:EntityInvolvement
>                        range  prov:Entity
>
>     prov:usage subrelationOf provs:qualified
>     provs:qualified domain: provs:Element
>                              range: provs:Involvement
>     prov:Activity subclassOf provs:Element
>     prov:Entity subclassOf provs:Element
>
>
>
> All the patterns are preserved. The concern about Involvement not
> being abstract has disappeared. In prov, you can't express instance
> of involvement, it's only in provs you can.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 13:19:40 GMT

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