Re: PROV-O ontology comments

Hi Jun,
Good points! I have tried to address them in the updated owl file. Some
comments are interleaved:

There are also some other object properties appear odd to me:
>
> - hasQualifiedControl, there is no range definition
>
> Sorry, this has been renamed to hadQualifiedAssociation with range defined
as Association (subclass of QualifiedInvolvement)


> - hasQualifiedEntity, should the domain be some sort of subclass of
> QualifiedInvolvement?
>
> The hadQualifiedEntity is to link any of the subclasses of
QualifiedInvolvement to an Entity.


> - wasEndedBy and wasStartedBy do not have domain or range definitions
>
> Since they are sub-properties of wasAssociatedWith, which has defined
domain and range, they inherit the corresponding domain and range.


>
>
>> What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain
>> (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything, then
>> what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an
>> arbitrary non-prov RDF statement? What is its connection to
>> provenance?
>>
>> The old W3C 2006 Time namespace is still used/included. Is use of this
>> ontology to be removed in the next revision?
>>
>
> Same question.
>
> Addressed.


>
>> I notice that comments (at least for adoptedPlan) still refer to
>> ProcessExecution.
>>
>
> And there are 9 (!) object properties to associate an entity with another
> entity or a subclass of it. That's a lot of different types of object
> properties between two classes! Is there any way to simplify it, either in
> the DM doc or in the ontology?
>
Yes, the majority of these are properties are to model the DM "common
relations" Section 6. I believe many of them are under discussion and some
may be removed (e.g. summary).


>
> There are not enough annotations in the ontology. I still need to spend
> some more time to read the DM doc to understand what classes like Plan,
> Association or Bundle are for. My bad. :(
>
>
> We will add the annotation (you mean plain text descriptions for
class/property) soon.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


> Talk to you soon!
>
> -- Jun
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>>
>
>