RE: PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]

Hi Daniel, Tim,

OK, I understand this is another RL-related issue and we do the best we can to meet all constraints. You are welcome to close the issue.

It is probably too late to consider at this stage, but would it be solvable by having a class X that is a super-type of Entity and Activity? I've raised the possibility of such a class with individuals for a variety of reasons, e.g. X would be what one asks the provenance of (rather than just entitiies).

Thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Mapping Dublin Core to the Open Provenance Model:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/

________________________________
From: dgarijov@gmail.com [dgarijov@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Garijo [dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es]
Sent: 08 April 2012 20:10
To: Timothy Lebo
Cc: Provenance Working Group
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]

Hi Simon,
this issue is now pending review.
Are you ok with Tim's answers and proposals? Can we close it?
(it seems more related to DM than PROV-O).

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/3/15 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>>
Simon,

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/319
>
> Raised by: Simon Miles
> On product: Ontology
>
> What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain
> (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything,

yes, any rdfs:Resource can be described using prov:hasAnnotation.

prov:Entity and prov:Activity are two subtypes of rdfs:Resource that can be described using prov:hasAnnotation

The largest reason for not having the domain defined is that we can't have an owl:unionOf in OWL-RL.


> then
> what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an
> arbitrary non-prov RDF statement?

Do you have an example of non-prov RDF statement that brings you concern?



> What is its connection to
> provenance?

I think this is a concern on DM, not the ontology.
I'd suggest:

1) clearing up your rdfs:domain concerns and reassigning this ISSUE to DM
or
2) start a new ISSUE on DM about it's connection to provenance.

Regards,
Tim