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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:39:20 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <789D7082-F97D-44DE-A137-0F03F540C264@rpi.edu>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Daniel,

Please let me know if we can close this issue.

I have summarized the discussions and conclusions below.

Regards,
Tim

1)
During our telecon yesterday, the prov-o team agreed to add the axiom:

ActivityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] . 

Because the domain of prov:activity is ActivityInvolvement, these properties are "effectively" mutually exclusive.

"If you have a prov:activity, you are a prov:ActivityInvolvement".
"If you are a prov:ActivityInvolvement, you do not have a prov:hadActivity".
"If you have a prov:hadActivity, you are not a prov:ActivityInvolvement".



2)
During the meeting, Daniel mentioned the "symmetric" problem and proposed to add:

Derivation subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] .

Which I believe has the same intent and purposes as just described for ActivityInvolvement.

"One should use prov:hadActivity to reference a Derivation's Activity, not prov:activity".
This applies to not only Derivation, but any other EntityInvolvement as well.



3)
As Daniel points out, Invalidation is a ActivityInvolvement (DM: "Invalidation is the start of the destruction, cessation, or expiry of an existing entity by an ____activity____.")
And so must also not use hadActivity to make the reference (instead, prov:activity).
So, Involvement is incorrectly in the domain of hadActivity.



THREE OWL Changes (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/feec0dc293e6):

* added ActivityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] . 
* added EntityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] .
* removed Invalidation from "prov:hadActivity rdfs:domain [ owl:unionOf ( Derivation Invalidation Responsibility Start ) ]"

No new RL violations result from these changes.




http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-05-21#Daniel


On May 18, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> 
> 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 13:49:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:49:55 GMT