- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:22:49 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org, stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk
- Message-ID: <CAExK0DdjcuUJYQX1oq+L9zdPs29GcofR0z=ti_9TmA6yZkVEPA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, this issue is now pending review. Stephen, if you still have concerns about the directionality of the edges, could you please provide an example at [1]?. If not, I would suggest to close this issue. Thanks, Daniel [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:PROV_example 2012/3/4 Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> > I would hope this is a non-issue. E.g. property paths in SPARQL include > provision for including inverse properties that are not explicitly defined: > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-**query/#propertypaths<http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths> > > (I guess this is just a reminder, but the "direction" of RDF properties > places no technical constraint on accessibility - one can, in principle > (and in practice with most triple stores) traverse a property backwards as > easily as forwards. Any need for explicit inverse properties is almost > entirely for human consumption (and authoring), and their absence shouldn't > constrain applications in any way. Indeed, defining inverse properties is > more likely to create problems of incompatibility by introducing different > ways to express the same assertion.) > > #g > -- > > > On 03/03/2012 16:28, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains [Ontology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/277<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/277> >> >> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell >> On product: Ontology >> >> During our group telecon, someone (Stephen Cresswell?) mentioned a >> concern that the directionality of some properties in prov-o would inhibit >> the use of property chains. >> >> Although "directionality" can be handled with owl:inverses, we are not >> including many inverses in prov-o for brevity (however, we are maintaining >> a component at [1]). Although "anyone" can define their own inverse of a >> prov-o property to achieve their property chains, this will inhibit >> interoperability. >> >> >> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**file/tip/ontology/components/** >> inverses.ttl<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components/inverses.ttl> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 19:23:18 UTC