- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:39 -0400
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Stephan, To help clarify, I added an editorialNote: The multiple rdfs:domain assertions are intended. One is simpler and works for OWL-RL, the union is more specific but is not recognized by OWL-RL. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/69f3bc010459 -Tim On Apr 26, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > Thanks Tim! > > I will close the issue. > > --Stephan > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > >> Stephan, >> >> On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/367 >>> >>> Raised by: Stephan Zednik >>> On product: Ontology >>> >>> 1) There are two domains defined for prov:hadActivity >>> >>> - prov:Involvement >>> - the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility >>> >>> from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain >>> >>> Where a property P has more than one rdfs:domain property, then the resources denoted by subjects of triples with predicate P are instances of all the classes stated by the rdfs:domain properties. >> >> Agreed. Both domains hold for all subjects that use the property. >> The simpler domain is for RL compatibility, and the union is for RL++ use. >> They do not contradict. >> >>> >>>> From what I can tell this means the domain is the intersection of prov:Involvement with the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility, which is just the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility since both are subclasses of prov:Involvement. >> >> Correct. >> >>> >>> >>> 2) annotations on prov:hadActivity >>> >>> - it appears that the domain has been relaxed to be a union of Derivation and Responsibility, so I think we can remove the prov:todo annotation >> >> done >> >>> >>> - The rdfs:comment is currently "The activity generating the the derived entity and using the derived-from entity". I think this should be updated to reflect the relaxed domain. What does it mean when a qualified Responsibility hadActivity? >>> >> >> DM says: >> >> derivation: >> activity: an optional identifier (a) for the activity using and generating the above entities; >> >> invalidation: >> activity: an optional identifier for the activity that invalidated the entity; >> >> responsibility: >> activity: an optional identifier (a) of an activity for which the responsibility link holds; >> >> >> PROV-O comment was: >> >> The activity generating the derived entity and using the derived-from entity. >> >> PROV-O comment changed to: >> >> Optional: The Activity that is part of the Involvement, which used, generated, invalidated, or was the responsibility of some Entity. >> >> -Tim >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 15:18:18 UTC