Re: Provenance of Inferred statements

Schenk, Simon, Renata Dividino, and Steffen Staab. "Reasoning with provenance, trust and all that other meta knowlege in owl." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Semantic Web in Provenance Management-Volume 526. CEUR-WS. org, 2009.

and other work from the same authors.



On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:19 AM +0200, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:

Named graphs are the best way that I know.  IMO they're much more
convenient than reification.

David

On 08/06/2016 07:39 PM, cristiano longo wrote:
> Let me explain with an example. Let us consider the following three
> statements:
> s1) A relativeOf B
> s2) B relativeOf C
> s3) B relativeOf D
>
> of course s1) and s2) are in the provenance of
>
> s4) A relativeOf C
> assuming that relativeOf is transitive, whereas s3) is not as it is not
> necessary to infer s4)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, cristiano longo
> <cristianolongo@gmail.com <mailto:cristianolongo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks all I'm studying 1) how to represent the provenance of a
>     statement (reification is a chance) and 2) what is and how it can be
>     determined the provenance of an inferred statement.
>
>
>     Il 07/ago/2016 01:21 AM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org
>     <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> ha scritto:
>
>         On 08/06/2016 04:39 PM, Cristiano Longo wrote:
>
>             Hi all, I'm approaching the notion of provenance related to
>             inferred
>             information. I wander if there are studies about that or
>             something which
>             may be related.
>
>
>         We are using prov:wasDerivedFrom, from the W3C PROV ontology, to
>         indicate that one graph was derived from another graph.
>
>         What kind of information are you trying to find?  What kind of
>         studies?
>
>         David Booth
>
>