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

Re: [PROV-O] Proposed OWL change: Dealing with Issue 568 (hadRole)

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:57:57 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|86468bd6351a236dd965ee390851b349o9MAw208l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50866A25.10502@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Daniel,
I just responded to Tim with a comment/question and a suggestion.
Luc

On 10/23/2012 09:41 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Tim has pointed to the section of the document where this is explained 
> (in the thread of the issue):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0209.html
>
> I think that given the explanation, we don't need to change anything.
> Luc was the one to raise the issue, so I'll wait for his response 
> before closing it.
>
> The issue is now pending review.
>
> Best,
> Daniel
>
> 2012/10/19 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>>
>
>     Hi Stephan,
>
>     I think you summarize the issue well. Maybe we should see what
>     others think about this choice.
>
>     Another solution would be to add a reminder about how inference
>     works in OWL... but maybe that's redundant :-)
>
>     regards
>     Paul
>
>
>     On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu
>     <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>         On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl
>         <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>>         Hi Stephan,
>>
>>         Here's the concrete issue:
>>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
>>
>>         It seems the question is, do want want to make the inference
>>         you outlined?
>>
>>         I agree that all the relations that are allowed to have a
>>         role are influence but dm specifically doesn't list influence
>>         as something you can apply a role to. Thus, this is something
>>         you probably don't want to explicitly state.
>
>         I think right now the best argument for removing Influence
>         from the domain is the confusion that it is causing.
>
>         From a modeling perspective I believe it is consistent with
>         the DM, but confusion about the semantics of property domains
>         is causing a great deal of stumbling on this.
>
>         We aren't saying that all influence relations can have a role,
>         just that any relation (DM term) that has a role can be
>         inferred to be an influence relation (which I believe is
>         consistent with the DM text through inheritance of the
>         relation 'type').
>
>         I think the issue here is trying to get the most reasoning
>         possible while in the RL restriction.  Since Influence is the
>         most specific RL-compatible super-class that covers all the
>         role-able classes, that is the most detailed domain we can set
>         that an RL reasoner will act upon.
>
>         I guess at this point I am ok with removing Influence from the
>         domain, but I would argue that the current modeling is
>         consistent with the DM.  We should make the change because the
>         modeling causes more user confusion than the benefit of the
>         inference.
>
>         --Stephan
>
>>
>>         cheers
>>         Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Stephan Zednik
>>         <zednis@rpi.edu <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>             On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Garijo
>>             <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
>>             <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>
>>>             Thanks Stephan, you are right. However the current
>>>             problem is that it is not consistent with DM.
>>
>>             I think it is worthwhile to remember what a property
>>             domain in RDFS implies.
>>
>>             |rdfs:domain| is an instance of |rdf:Property|
>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property> that is
>>             used to state that any resource that has a given property
>>             is an instance of one or more classes.
>>
>>             With the currently modeling, a DL reasoner will infer
>>             that the subject is an instance of the union class, and a
>>             RL reasoner will infer only that the subject is an
>>             instance of Influence.  Since all of the classes in the
>>             union class are specializations of Influence, the RL
>>             inference is not incorrect or inconsistent with the DM,
>>             it is just not as precise as the DL inference.
>>
>>             An RL reasoner
>>
>>             :ex prov:hadRole [ a prov:Role;  prov:label "example
>>             role"; ] .
>>
>>             Will infer the following statement
>>
>>             :ex rdf:type prov:Influence .
>>
>>             Which I do not believe is inconsistent with the DM.
>>
>>             --Stephan
>>
>>>
>>>             I have been looking further, and there are other
>>>             properties where we have just
>>>             a union in the domain (e.g., qualifiedInfluence,
>>>             wasInfluencedBy, atLocation). In
>>>             these cases the properties would have an empty domain in
>>>             DL. I think that it's better
>>>             to have it empty rather than allow inconsitencies with
>>>             the DM.
>>>
>>>             Thus I still propose to make the change to the
>>>             documents. Thoughts?
>>>             Best,
>>>             Daniel
>>>
>>>             2012/10/19 Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu
>>>             <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>>
>>>
>>>                 Looking at the domain of hadRole again, I believe
>>>                 what we have right now is the result of the RL++
>>>                 compromise.  The current domain in DL would be the
>>>                 intersection of prov:Influence and the union of
>>>                 prov:Association and prov:InstantaneousEvent, which
>>>                 equates to just the union of prov:Association and
>>>                 prov:InstantaneousEvent.  In RL, the union is
>>>                 ignored so the domain would be recognized as
>>>                 prov:Influence.  There was no way to get the domain
>>>                 aligned with the DM under RL, so adding Influence
>>>                 was a fallback, otherwise the domain would be
>>>                 unspecified.
>>>
>>>                 That is at least my recollection of why it is as it
>>>                 currently is.
>>>
>>>                 --Stephan
>>>
>>>                 On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Garijo
>>>                 <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
>>>                 <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>                 Prov-o team:
>>>>                 there seems to be a bug in the ontology, which Luc
>>>>                 highlighted in the last telecon:
>>>>
>>>>                 prov:Influence is listed as domain of prov:hadRole,
>>>>                 and this is not compatible
>>>>                 with PROV-DM. I have checked the latest documents
>>>>                 and the only changes to do are:
>>>>
>>>>                   * Remove prov:Inflluence from the domain of
>>>>                     prov:hadRole in the ontology.
>>>>                   * Remove prov:Influence from the domain of
>>>>                     prov:hadRole in the Overview.html document.
>>>>                   * Remove prov:hadRole in the "described with
>>>>                     properties" box in Overview.html
>>>>
>>>>                 If nobody disagrees with these changes, I will
>>>>                 commit them on Monday.
>>>>
>>>>                 Best,
>>>>
>>>>                 Daniel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         --
>>         Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>         http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>         Assistant Professor
>>         - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>>           Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer
>>         Science
>>         - The Network Institute
>>         VU University Amsterdam
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     --
>     Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>     http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>     Assistant Professor
>     - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>       Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
>     - The Network Institute
>     VU University Amsterdam
>
>

-- 
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 10:00:45 UTC

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