- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:31:49 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian, That sounds great. I've been hoping someone more owl-aware than I am could look at this, but also that prov-o needed to stabilize before such people would be free. I'm not totally sure whether it's possible to validate without doing inference first, because you might only learn two things are equal (hence violating some impossibility constraint) by doing inferences. How do you envision this being tied into the specs? Should PROV-CONSTRAINTS just reference it once done? --James -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ----- Original message ----- > In the PROV-O call today [1], we agreed that it would be useful to > have a formalization of PROV-Constraints in OWL. > > In particular we are thinking about section 5, things like > functionality, reflexibility, etc., rather than the long inferences > and time order constraints which would be much harder to do in OWL > alone. > > We feel the PROV-O community in particular would mainly see use for > validation checking rather than inferences, so that they can validate > their produced PROV-O. > > > Paul has also started work on [3] which uses SPARQL queries to create > inferences [4] and constraints [5] - this could form part of a > validator tool, which would be very useful. > > We know Paolo and Khalid also published a paper at IPAW for checking > PROV using DataLog [6][7] > > > So we are looking for volunteers for doing similar work with OWL, > ideas on how we should proceed, and perhaps a schedule for this. > > Currently we have: > > * Jun > * Stian > * Paul? > * Tim (?) > * Khalid, Paolo? (IPAW work on Datalog) > > Anyone else? > > > Our current idea is to go through (mainly) section 5 of > PROV-Constraint [8] - modulo any later changes - and model these in a > simple OWL file that extends PROV-O. This can be OWL-Full. We won't > address time constraints or complex inferences. > > We're also looking for ways to test this. > > > In the interest of getting started, I've made a template OWL in Mercurial. [9] > Feel free to modify! > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-08-06 > [3] https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin > [4] > https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin/blob/master/prov-rules/inference/activity/generation-use-commuication-inference-6.txt > [5] > https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin/blob/master/prov-rules/constraints/entity/generation-precedes-usage-39.txt > [6] http://ipaw2012.bren.ucsb.edu/images/8/8e/Missier_encoding_slides.pdf [7] > http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/paolo.missier/doc/IPAW2012-datalog.pdf [8] > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/releases/ED-prov-constraints-20120723/prov-constraints.html > [9] > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/03321d46ee14/ontology/prov-constraints.owl > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 20:32:57 UTC