Re: hadMember and wasInfluencedBy

This looks good to me.

Paul


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Web & Media Group | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam