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

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

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:54:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=y14hs_2WorRmR7+ajnEjBk=Ab7knjO6Eh8oz5XGh4qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I don't think I like this split much.. in provA you had to spell out
each of the involvements.. for instance

:usage a prova:Usage ;
  prova:usingActivity :activity ;
  prova:usedEntity :entity .

(and those classes/properties are not in any way related to say
prova:Generation, prov:generatingActivity and prova:generatedEntity)


while in provb we have the current structure with a prov:Involvement
hierarchy and prov:entity/prov:activity. Add the binary relationship,
and now we have 3 ways to express generation. How is this helping
interoperability?



I believe that if we do such a split, then the miniature version will
have to do only the binary relationships.

I have a stronger feeling that we should try to formalize guidance
rules which everyone not interested in OWL-RL can use - even RL users
can look at it to understand the ontology, but use the RL ontology for
their reasoning.


On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 13:19, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 13:55:51 GMT

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