- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:07:02 -0500
- To: "Ralph TQ [Gmail]" <rhodgson@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <D8447850-47FB-4CE9-9917-A0AEF331430A@rpi.edu>
Ralph, On Nov 4, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote: > Tim, > > I consider both properties, prov:wasInfluencedBy and prov:wasInformedBy, semantically close. Colloquially, one states that something was 'informed by" something else. > In QUDT we want to say what guided or even contributed wholesale to a unit description. Got it. > The domain and range of prov:wasInformedBy are both prov:Activity, whereas in QUDT, I am clearly speaking of an (abstract) Entity. Agreed. > If were were to run an inference Units would become Activities. To avoid this incorrect inference, we need to use prov:wasInfluencedBy. What about prov:wasDerivedFrom? Its domain and range is Entity. Here, your subject Entity is a unit description and it was derived from (what appears to be) parts of a web page from which you took some information. Does that work for you? > But that, to my way of thinking, has weaker semantics. You're right. "weaker" in the sense that its domain and range are "any" of the main three PROV classes. > Albeit a small point but a source of confusion that can lead to wrong inferences. You're right to look at the inferences that follow, but I think the fix is in finding a sibling of wasInformedBy that suits your Entity derivations. Regards, Tim > > > Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq > Mobile Phone: +1 781-789-1664 > > CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant > > > On Nov 4, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> Ralph, >> >> Thanks for your comment regarding the confusion between wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy. >> >> As you point out in your email and in your diagram, wasInformedBy is a restricted sub property of wasInfluencedBy. >> >> Could you elaborate on what can be "easily confused"? >> >> You mention that you notice the confusion when extending PROV-O with your ontology. Could you provide an example that helps highlight the confusion? >> >> Finally, do you have any suggestions for what the working group can do to clarify the distinction between the two properties? >> >> Thanks for your help. We're happy to make changes to the documents, we just need to know a bit more about what we need to address. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> p.s. We've assigned your comment to the issue https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592 >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> >>> PROVO-O properties prov:wasInfluencedBy and prov:wasInformedBy are easily confused. We notice this when we are describing what has 'informed' what in descriptions and other assertions in QUDT. >>> >>> The diagram below, from TopBraid, shows the schema associated with these properties. prov:wasInformedBy has a restricted domain and range over its super-property prov:wasInfluencedBy. Perhaps the rationale for this is somewhere in the working group postings? >>> >>> <Screen Shot 2012-11-02 at 9.59.31 AM.png> >>> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq >>> >>> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:07:28 UTC