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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:24:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DegfDwKCMXdfj2AGSXKgA6i1JDCNkOwC913bHSpaATpJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

2012/5/22 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Daniel,
>
> On May 21, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> following up the discussion we had today in the teleco,
> we could add a "Derivation subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] ."
>
>
> Thanks for making this explicit. I agree with this one.
>
> That would mean that prov:activity should not be used in Derivations
> (or that if you have something with the prov:activity relationship, then
> it is not
> a derivation).
>
>
> Correct. the "prov:involvee" on Derivation is the Entity (in line with the
> "rdf:object rule" of the qualification pattern)
>
> This would also be applicable for Invalidation, Responsibility and Start.
>
> By the way, I've realized that Invalidation is in the domain of
> prov:activity
> and prov:hadAvtivity.
>
> If the activity is optional, then it is not an ActivityInvolvement.
>
>
> I'd have to double check the constraints document, but an Invalidation is
> always invalided by _some_ activity, you just don't have to say which.
> (this is a min 1 cardinality, which we have been avoiding saying for RL
> "lightness"; instead, we're relying on the rdfs:domain to say it).
>
> If you do cite the Activity, you use prov:activity; You never use
> hadActivity on Invalidation.
>
> Do you agree?
>
Yes, I think this makes sense.

>
>
> If the activity is not optional, then it shouldn't be in domain of
> prov:hadActivity.
>
>
> This is a _very_ good catch.
> I now think that Invalidation should be removed from the domain of
> hadActivity.
> (I think this is a reasonable issue to keep under the current ISSUE).
>
> Do you agree?
>
Yes, this was quick consensus :)
Thanks,
Daniel

>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> 2012/5/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
>
>>
>> On May 18, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> > PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/378
>> >
>> > Raised by: Daniel Garijo
>> > On product: Ontology
>> >
>> > We should clarify the difference between prov:activity and
>> prov:hadActivity (so people don't use prov:hadActivity in
>> qualifiedGenerations).
>> >
>> > We could add a restirction on Generation:
>> > Generation subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] .
>> >
>>
>> ^^ This is within RL and states the restriction that would prevent the
>> confusion between activity and hadActivity.
>>
>> > And, since the difference between activity and hadActivity is that the
>> former is not optional:
>> > Generation subclassOf [ on prov:activity min 1 ] .
>>
>> ^^ min 1 goes against RL, which is why we've been avoiding them.
>>
>> >
>> > Also, we should add an rdf:comment explaining this decision.
>>
>> ^^ Do you have a proposed comment to put in?
>>
>> THanks,
>> TIm
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 08:25:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 08:25:54 GMT