Re: [ORG] Draft response to PROV WG

1. +1
2. +1
3. Not sure here...
            * seems like there might be some opportunities here from a
W3C perspective to show stronger linkages between ORG and PROV.   If
even from an informative perspective showing mapping between terms
might be extremely useful:  E.g. Dublin-Core and PROV-O collaborated
on a TR to explore such mappings outside the ontology .

I'm not suggesting something so elaborate, but I think it is important
to keep our options open to explore linkages between different


Eric  Stephan

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Dave Reynolds
<> wrote:
> [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
>     asserted
>  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]
> [2]

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 23:36:36 UTC