W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > February 2013

[ORG] Draft response to PROV WG

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:41:56 +0000
Message-ID: <511FB6D4.9040405@gmail.com>
To: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
[See earlier message on disposition of ORG issues. This is a proposed 
draft response to the PROV WG. It would be sent out on behalf of the GLD 
WG and thus needs WG approval. I would like to seek that approval at 
next week's call. Dave]

Dear Jun (and PROV working group),

Thank you again for your helpful and thoughtful comments on the
Organization Ontology and its use of PROV-terms.

You offered three comments:
  1. that prov:wasDerivedFrom should be explicitly or implicitly
  2. that we should check that our intended use of PROV-O would not
     lead to any violation of the PROV semantic constraints [1]
  3. that we might consider use of PROV invalidation terms

1. prov:wasDerivedFrom

We agree with your recommendation that a prov:wasDerivedFrom
relationship should exist between the org:originalOrganization and
org:resultedFrom Organization of an org:changeEvent. We have adopted
your suggestion of expressing this by means of a property chain axiom
and have added this axiom to the ontology and added an explanatory
example as part of informative section [2].

2. Semantic Constraints

We have examined the semantic constraints expressed in [1]. We see no
conflict between those and intended usage of ORG. For those terms in
ORG which relate to PROV-O terms we see no semantic constraints which
would limit usage of the ORG terms themselves. Applications of ORG
which make direct use of additional PROV-O terms (e.g. to describe the
time period of a change event) should naturally take the semantic
constraints on those terms into account. We have included a mention of
this in the informative section [2].

3. PROV invalidation terms

Thank you for bringing this part of PROV to our attention. There may
well be applications of ORG which also wish to express such
invalidation information in which case they should be, and are, free
to use the relevant PROV-O terms. However, we do not have particular
use cases in this area and feel the existing references to PROV-O are
sufficient to allow ORG users to decide whether additional parts of
PROV-O, like this, are relevant to their usage.

We would be grateful if you could confirm if you are content with
these responses.

Thanks again for your feedback, much appreciated.

Dave Reynolds (on behalf of GLD working group)

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 16:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:05 UTC