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: Cresswell, Stephen <stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:54:22 -0000
Message-ID: <F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93FED7EF@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk>
To: "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "Provenance Working Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Daniel,

 

Yes, I am happy for this to be closed.  Thanks for your response.  Issue
277 has a promising title, but has set off in slightly different
direction (about inverse properties in property chains).  I will send
further comments to that thread.

 

Stephen Cresswell

 

________________________________

From: dgarijov@gmail.com [mailto:dgarijov@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Garijo
Sent: 15 March 2012 00:28
To: Provenance Working Group; Cresswell, Stephen
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-307 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (6/6) StephenC
[Ontology]

 

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
<mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@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_Ontol
ogy:_Reviewer_feedback






________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________


***********************************************************************************************
This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.
***********************************************************************************************

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 14:55:00 GMT

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