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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:18:10 -0400
Message-Id: <18313D60-CB00-49D6-8717-DC9B350154D4@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
prov-wg,

On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
> 
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Ontology
> 
> 
> The definition of hadRole in prov-o
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole
> 
> lists 
> prov:Association or prov:End or prov:Generation or prov:Invalidation or prov:Start or prov:Usage
> in its domain, which is what prov-dm states,
> but also
> prov:Influence
> which is not compatible with prov-dm.


It depends on what is meant by "compatible".

The appendix at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#prov-o-owl-profile
lists the "OWL-RL violation" of hadRole's domain,

prov:hadRole rdfs:domain [ (prov:Association prov:End prov:Generation prov:Invalidation prov:Start prov:Usage) ]


 and follows by providing a more general assertion that suits (and informs) OWL RL:

prov:hadRole	rdfs:domain	prov:Influence
The appendix also clarifies in narrative the meaning of rdfs:domain that can be mis-interpreted in other modeling paradigms (and "prov-dm"):

The more general domain should not be interpreted as saying, e.g., "prov:hadActivity can be used with any prov:Influence", but as "Anything using prov:hadActivity is (at least) a prov:Influence".

The appendix also states that  "some property domains or ranges have also been defined with the closest common superclass for the classes in the [OWL-RL-violating] union"


Tim
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 19:18:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC