RE: PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains [Ontology]

 

Hi,

 

I agree that the direction of properties is not an issue (and it wasn't
really me who raised this).  I didn't see it as an issue because:

- the properties are already in the right direction anyway (except for
defining prov:alternateOf from prov:specializationOf, and that would
never be agreed).

- I didn't know that there was a reluctance to define inverse
properties.

 

However, I don't agree that the direction never matters, because it
matters in OWL property chain axioms, and it seems worthwhile to have
property chains defined in the ontology and not just work around with
SPARQL queries.

 

The point that I did make, that was referred to here from
PROV-ISSUE-307, was that it would be necessary to specialise the
subproperties linking prov:Involvement to allow the direct properties to
be defined using property chains.  That has been resolved.

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen Cresswell 

 

________________________________

From: dgarijov@gmail.com [mailto:dgarijov@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Garijo
Sent: 08 April 2012 20:23
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org; Cresswell, Stephen
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains
[Ontology]

 

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

(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

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





 



________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________


***********************************************************************************************
This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.
***********************************************************************************************

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG