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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:57:06 -0400
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0829D14-705F-482C-A9CC-8F87BB3B740F@rpi.edu>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>

On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Garijo <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 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.

+!

-Tim


> 
> --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>
>> 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> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 18:10:45 UTC

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