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

PROV-ISSUE-372 (qualified-property-chains): ( prov:qualifedUsage prov:entity ) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:28:05 +0000
Message-Id: <E1SRN2r-0000fA-On@nelson.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-372 (qualified-property-chains): ( prov:qualifedUsage prov:entity ) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/372

Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: 

http://www.w3.org/mid/D3BF08F5-B11F-4766-919D-FD81DD9D59C7@w3.org

(I have not found yet the semantics document, I am not sure whether what I write makes sense...)

Looking at the Prov-o and the qualified terms. Taking the first time in the list, ie, qualifiedUsage. Isn't it correct that, at least conceptually, if I have 

ex:E a prov:Entity;
 prov:qualifiedUsage [
   a prov:Usage ;
   prov:entity ex:E
 ] .

then, again conceptually, I would expect something like

ex:E prov:used ex:E .

to be 'present'. It strikes me that this is exactly what the OWL 2 property chains do (and those are still OWL RL), by saying:

(prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used .

Isn't it worth adding it to the OWL ontology? Or do I miss something here?

Ivan
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 12:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 12:28:09 GMT