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 15:01:09 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|fde39e1d0b3dfbb4ed57007fd3ea7206o1QE2U08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F4B8CA5.2040104@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian

On 27/02/2012 14:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 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 .
>
>    

But isnt' it what is currently in the provRDF mapping (except for names 
of properties)?
> (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?
>
>
>    
What do you mean by 3 ways? It's exactly the same number of ways as in 
the current
ontology.


> 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.
>
>
>    
What reasoning are we aiming at here?  There is *very* little that we 
have specified.
Can you explain?

Luc


> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>      
>
>
>    
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 14:12:42 GMT

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