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

Re: Request for feedback: org/prov Organization relationship

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:59:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpuFBZqh-2EbO3vQe-Hu7RaGKBW-F4snJiuTLLQ4wHVDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Cc: "l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

The semantics of prov:Organization is that it implies responsibility. Thus,
prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Organization. We made a decision in
the prov WG not to specify mappings within the main ontology and instead
specify those in notes. Although we will not have time to specify a mapping
to foaf.

My view is that in some cases an org:Organization will also be a
prov:Organization and other cases not. Thus the assertion that
prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization is the is correct.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks again to the Provenance working group for feedback on the Last
> Call version of the ORG ontology. We have separately responded to that
> feedback.
> While not part of that feedback, the GLD working has noted that PROV-O
> contains a term prov:Organization [1] and feels that it would be
> appropriate to clarify the relationship between that and
> org:Organization [2].
> The GLD working group is thus considering adding some formal assertion
> of that relationship to the ORG ontology. We have two obvious choices.
> (1) We could assert:
>       org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf  prov:Organization .
> This would reinforce that any org:Organization may be treated as a
> prov:Organization and used within provenance statements.
> (2) We could assert more strongly that:
>       org:Organization owl:equivalentClass prov:Organization .
> As far as we can tell the intention behind both classes is the same and
> so this seems  reasonable. However, since ORG already states:
>       org:Organization owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization .
> this would imply that prov:Organization is also equivalent to
> foaf:Organization.  We note that PROV-O does not declare any
> relationship to foaf and so are not sure if this entailment would be
> regarded as problematic from your viewpoint.
> Please may we have your comment on whether either of (1) or (2) seem
> appropriate to you and which would be preferred.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Dave
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Organization
> [2]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:Organization

Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 12:00:10 UTC

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