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

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

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:44:16 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|cbdd25c10fffb529e751ebcd27218b3ao9MAiK08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|508666F0.1080302@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the explanation.  It is now clear that the document reflects what
was intended.  I have a comment/question and suggestion.

1.  We came across this issue by writing a converter from rdf to other 
representations of PROV,
   and making use of the "ontology compiler" elmo.
   The resulting code allows us to write

    ex:e2 prov:hadQualifiedDerivation ex:d1
    ex:d1 prov:hadRole ex:r

   The appendix indicates that the multiple RDFS domains and ranges 
   for a property are interpreted as an intersection.

   Are you saying that these statements are *not* consistent with an 
OWL2 DL/Full profile of prov-o, but are consistent
   with an OWL2 RL profile of prov-o?

2. Given the importance of this appendix, I find it really buried. The 
document is designed to allow browsing, but in
    there is no indication that one should read this appendix to fully 
understand prov:hadRole.
    Can we add a forwarding pointer to the appendix next to 
prov:Influence, in the domain of prov:hadRole?


On 10/22/2012 08:18 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> prov-wg,
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker 
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto: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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole> 	rdfs:domain 
> prov:Influence <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#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

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 09:44:50 UTC

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