Re: hadMember and wasInfluencedBy

James,

On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:30 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> That looks fine to me, if I'm rendering the markup correctly in my head.

The page renders if you download the file and view there.

> 
> Is there some versioning of prov-o.owl that will reflect this change?

Yes. To be done at some point in late August.
The issue is still outstanding at https://github.com/timrdf/prov-wg/issues/2

>  I strongly suspect no one has done anything that this change will break, but not sure what best practice is here.

That’s partly why I’m postponing the changes to the OWL, since I need more time than I currently have to work through the change control.

-Tim

> 
> --James
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I don’t think the errata statement should mention the OWL, since it is non normative and will soon be updated.
>> 
>> How about: https://github.com/timrdf/prov-wg/commit/52683ab01c1900efc0053405f08986c46e531bf1
>> it follows the pattern of the previous errata.
>> 
>> If okay, then Ivan can put https://github.com/timrdf/prov-wg/blob/master/errata.html at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/errata.html
>> If not okay, fork it and propose the change.
>> 
>> My notes for the change process are at https://github.com/timrdf/prov-wg/wiki/PROV-errata
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.