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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-302 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (1/6) Paolo [Ontology]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:12:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4F61B289.5050104@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>
Hola  Daniel,

short story: yes please close this issue, we'll move on to the new derived ones.

see below for more comments

Cheers,
  -Paolo


On 3/14/12 11:54 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
>     Hi,
>         as requested, a few comments on the ontology (as of now: it's a rapidly moving or perhaps crystallizing target so some of the
>     comments may have been superseded already)
>
>     ==== A) on class hierarchies:
>
>     1 ====
>     dm says: hasOriginalSource is a strict sub-relation of wasDerivedFrom.
>     but in -o it's a sub-property of wasAssociatedWith
>
> Solved in the current version of the ontology
yes, it's gone :-) so that's fine
>
>     2 ===
>     tracedTo property hierarchy. some subclassing is part of DM, notably
>         wasDerivedFrom  implies tracedTo
>     but I am not sure about others, e.g. specializationOf, wasAttributedTo, and more.
>
>     Is there a justification for this hierarchy?
>
> Would you mind to review the new version of the ontology? I think that This issue has been addressed.
this is fine now. How about tracedTo transitivity? ( 4.3.1Traceability in part II)

>     ====  B) on inferences:
>
>     Some inferences are captured, namely those that map to subclass relations, while others are not. Was this done systematically? I
>     didn't check throughout  but for instance
>
>     wasQuotedFrom =>   wasAttributedTo in DM, but not in -o.
>     wasQuotedFrom =>   wasDerivedFrom in DM, but not in -o.
>
> I will raise a separate issue with the attribution part. Quotation and derivation is solved.
>
>     there is a rdfs:comment on this though:
>     "TODO: Shouldn't Quotation be a subtype of Derivation (and same for the binary relations?) -Tim  --"
>
>     ==== C) what is the intended usage of the involvement property (not the Involvement class)?
>
> We have used "involved" to group all the binary relationships toghether. It is also a placeholder for extensibility purposes.
if it's a technical device, I don't mind.

>     ==== D) is the *qualified* property still needed?
>
> It has been replaced for qualifiedX (where the X is the involvement to which this relationship is linked).
v good
>
>     ==== E) 6.6 wasSummaryOf is a strict sub-relation of wasDerivedFrom.
>         this is not the case in -o
>
>     (then again, summary may disappear in the future)
>
> It has dissapeared.
>
>     ===  F) Trace Class
>
>     rdfs:comment says "A prov:Trace can be from any prov:Element to any prov:Element, so it cannot be a subclass of
>     prov:EntityInvolvement or prov:ActivityInvolvement."
>
>        but then Trace is in fact a subclass of EntityInvolvement?
>
> I'll raise a separate issue. It looks like a typo.
>
>     ==  G) equivalent classes EntityInvolvement (asnd  ActivityInvolvement)
>
>     why not just subclasses of (entity some Entity)? note that an OWL reasoner won't do anything with these equivalences at the moment.
>     I think Stian recently addressed this
>
> EntityInvolvement is currently disjoint form ActivityInvolvement
good
>
>     ==== H) class Role
>
>     is this class still needed?  isn't this subsumed by general attributes?
>     and if we keep it, currently the domain of hadRole includes Derivation, however this seems incorrect as there are no roles
>     associated to derivation
>
> Well, since Role is one of the main attributes for qualifying the relationships and it is very close to provenance, we decided to 
> make it a class in the ontology. I'll raise a separate issue for the domain of hadRole including Derivation.
>
>     ===
>     Collections missing (Stian working on this I think)
>
>  I'll raise a separate issue for this.
>
>     --Paolo
>
> Since all the concerns are raised in separate issues or have been addressed, can we close this issue?
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 09:13:12 GMT

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