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

Re: [owl changed] PROV-ISSUE-372 (qualified-property-chains): ( prov:qualifedUsage prov:entity ) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:54:46 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7EB637FE-D516-46A3-A555-CA914F06E0DA@rpi.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan,

I'm using a RL checker that Stian made for us to use.
It is described at [1].

I'm not sure what the messages intend to convey.

Regards,
Tim

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#JAR_checker

On May 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Tim,
> 
> I am not sure I understand thos RL violation errors, actually. I thought property chains are part of RL. Or are these errors independent of the usage of property chains?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> ---
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
> 
> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 May 2012, at 19:21, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I've committed 
>> 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/d59de1d6a8ba
>> 
>> to include chain properties such as:
>> 
>>> (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used .
>> 
>> Note that Stian's RL checker gives the following "RL violations", which we will need to "justify" in the appendix of the next PROV-O HTML release:
>> 
>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in FunctionalObjectProperty axiom: [FunctionalObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>]
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 17:55:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 17:55:17 GMT