Problems with Example 2 and 4 in https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430

I have encoded the complete Prov-O ontology from the specification (https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430) using our Ontological Modeling Language, OML (http://www.opencaesar.io/oml/) that we created to facilitate ontology authoring for humans by automating the process of calculating disjointness axioms according to a simple policy: if two classes have no common specialization in the scope of a set of ontologies, then they are asserted to be disjoint in that scope. Applying this policy to an OML vocabulary of Prov-O helped identify two problems:

  *   In Example 2: https://github.com/opencaesar/provenance-vocabularies#example-2

  *   In Example 4: https://github.com/opencaesar/provenance-vocabularies#example-4


I understand that the working group that developed the provenance ontology has long been dismantled; however, I believe that it would be helpful to fix these problems as the examples convey a subtly incorrect idea about the domain/ranges of the properties involved.

Nicolas F. Rouquette
Principal Computer Scientist
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology M/S 301-490, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91189, USA
email: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>
phone: +1 (818) 354-9600
cell: +1 (626) 639-5282