- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:31:02 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
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