Re: hadMember and wasInfluencedBy

Hi,

I don't think it is urgent; I just wanted to make sure I hadn't gone crazy, and make sure there is a note of this somewhere.

Would a one-line errata statement of the form:

"In the PROV-O recommendation and associated OWL ontology, prov:hadMember is incorrectly asserted to be a subproperty of prov:wasInfluencedBy, and this assertion should be removed in any future version."

be enough?

--James

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> James, Luc,
> 
> We have a small collection of errata and OWL tweaks to make, but I haven’t had the time to design and set up the change control process.
> 
> If you’d like to write up the errata statement, I’m sure Ivan can get it into the errata document.
> But I’m afraid I’ll be holding up the OWL change until I can get to it in late August.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 5:27 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Good, that's what I thought but I could not find an issue discussing this.  I just found the discussion you refer to:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-12#Collection_membership  
>> 
>> The related resolution about hadMember is a little ambiguous, but it seems clear from context that the intent was that hadMember not be considered a type of influence.  Following Ivan's response, I guess this means a short erratum for prov-o (and maybe a fix to the actual owl file)?
>> 
>> --James
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi James
>>> 
>>> We explicitly agreed that membership was not a subtype of influence (or derivation) and would also remain binary.
>>> 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>> University of Southampton 
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>> United Kingdom
>>> 
>>>> On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:41, "James Cheney" <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I was just working on something involving PROV-O and noticed that the ontology makes hadMember a subproperty of wasInfluencedBy.  However, the constraints and semantics do not include this constraint/inference (see Inference 15 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#influence-inference). 
>>>> 
>>>> I can't find any email or issues regarding this.  Was taking hadMember to be a subproperty of influence an intentional decision at some point (that I missed in writing the constraints)?
>>>> 
>>>> I think it may affect validity.  If hadMember is an influence then it cannot be part of a strict cycle of influences (i.e. one that includes a derivation step).  
>>>> 
>>>> If so, is this something that needs to be fixed at some point (and is there a way to make a note of this for future reference)?
>>>> 
>>>> --James
>>>> -- 
>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 14:31:44 UTC