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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-307 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (6/6) StephenC [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:28:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcNGWgA5PWnrjWf6jP99jxJ9MMqrqvCWF42VNJtJA8qbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk
Hi Stephen,

> These are comments on PROV-O as I found it on Wednesday (22 Feb 2012).
>
> Generally, I think PROVO-O is looking usable and compatible with PROV-DM
> wd3.  The PROV-RDF mapping is really helpful for understanding how
> PROVO-O is intended to be used.
>
> - Naturalness of RDF.
> I'm a bit scared to see a single record in the PROV-ASE being mapped to
> >10 RDF triples, especially if the record was only stating a simple
> binary relationship. However, if we're allowed to skip the qualified
> involvements when we don't need them and just use the direct properties,
> then we could often be using just one triple.  We are allowed to do
> that, aren't we?  Also, there is hopefully nothing stopping people from
> using their own domain-specific subclasses and subproperties.
>
> Yes, we are allowed to use the binary relationships without having to use
the qualified involvements.
We would lose some information but we woould gain more simplicity. And no,
there is nothing
stopping people from using their own domain-specific cubclasses and
subrpoperties :)

>
> - I don't see any mismatches from PROV-DM that aren't already flagged or
> under discussion.  I'm still looking.
>
> - At the moment, many of the properties are not defined with all their
> characteristics (e.g. prov:tracedTo and prov:specializationOf should be
> transitive, prov:alternateOf should be symmetric).  Presumably that's
> because the priority has been to get the hierarchies of classes and
> properties settled.  It would be really nice to see some of the many
> things that could be done to make the ontology come alive and enable
> some helpful inferences.  I think that many of the definitions,
> constraints and defined inferences of prov-dm can be expressed quite
> directly in OWL-RL using property chain axioms, and I really hope that
> the plan is to do that - e.g.
> - direct properties (e.g. prov:used, prov:wasGeneratedBy, ...) should be
> inferable from the corresponding Involvements.
> - wasInformedBy should be inferable from property chains (used,
> wasGeneratedBy)
> - tracedTo should be inferable using all various paths defined in
> prov-dm.
>
> This is issue 277.

>
> Some of the recent changes may be unhelpful for that. By consistently
> using properties with generic names (prov:qualified, prov:entity) to
> link Involvements, it will be impossible to define the property chains
> that would enable the direct properties (prov:used, prov:wasGeneratedBy,
> ...) to be inferred from them.  To do that, I think there need to be
> subproperties which are unique to the different subclasses of
> Involvement.  It appears that these have only just been removed.
>
> For example, I don't believe it's possible define the ontology so that
> it's possible to infer this...
>   :a1 prov:used :e1 .
> from this...
>   :a1 prov:qualified :u1 .
>   :u1 prov:entity :e1 .
>   :u1 a prov:Usage .
> ... but it would be possible to do that if the prov:qualified and
> prov:entity properties were specialised for linking prov:Used.
>
> That change has been undone, and you have the qualified relationships
back.

>
>
> - On first reading, I wrongly thought prov:Quotation was a kind of
> Entity rather than a kind of EntityInvolvement, and I correspondingly
> misread hadQuoterAgent, hadQuotedAgent property as relating an Entity to
> an Agent and thought that it ought to be a specialization of
> wasAttributedTo.  The way it's actually modeled does match PROV-DM, so
> there's nothing wrong here, but it might be worth considering renaming
> prov:Quotation to help avoid the tempting misreading.
>
> I'll raise this as a separate issue.

Given that all the issues have been resolved or raised as separate issues,
can we close this one?
Thanks,
Daniel

> Stephen Cresswell
>
>

2012/3/5 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-307 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (6/6) StephenC  [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/307
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93EA7191@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#WG_feedback_Feb_2012
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-O_Ontology:_Reviewer_feedback
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 00:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT