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: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:24:27 +0200
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8F996AD8-6331-42C4-9228-683057C2E603@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Well... I do not really understand this; maybe Stian should investigate.

Looking at

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#OWL_2_RL

the only restriction on properties in the case of OWL 2 RL is that reflexive properties are not in use. Otherwise, it says:

[[[
4.2.2 Property Expressions

Property expressions in OWL 2 RL are identical to the property expressions in the structural specification [OWL 2 Specification].
]]]

As such, adding a property chains for object properties defined in the Ontology should not affect its RL compliance. That being said, I am not an OWL reasoning expert and I might miss something. However, chains clearly appears in the rule set, so a rule based OWL RL reasoner should be able to handle that without any problems. (I know my implementation does it.)

Stian, could you investigate a little? I know you rely on the OWL API, so you are only a go-between, but nevertheless...

Thanks

Ivan

On May 7, 2012, at 19:54 , Timothy Lebo wrote:

> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 07:21:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 May 2012 07:21:41 GMT