Re: Update on PROV-O OWL file (Action item 55)

Hi Paul,
Yes, I was just trying to initiate a discussion about how we can address
Ivan's and your points for RL compliance. Adding a new class will help, but
we need to figure out its scope and definition.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Satya:
>
> I just said getting prov-o could be done by adding an element...not that
> it should be done this way.
>
> Paul
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 21:45, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Ivan,
> Thank you for the feedback!
>
>  As Stian mentioned, we can address the issue of having union of classes
> as domain of the prov:hasTemporalValue property. But as Luc replied the
> PROV-DM TPWD associated time information with both Entity and Activity,
> which are disjoint. Asserting the domain as owl:Thing is also a RL profile
> violation.
>
>  The use of a new Element class suggested by Paul also has issues since
> it is not clear if the Element class will subsume Entity, Activity,
> QualifiedInvolvement -and- Role, Bundle, Role, and Time. If it does not it
> will violate the DM TPWD and if it does then it will be equivalent to
> owl:Thing.
>
>  Some additional comments are inline:
>
>
>> ie, using a union of classes as part of the domain is not allowed. The
>> rules also express this. And, although a layperson in terms of hard core
>> logic, I can see why: if a resource is the subject of that property, a
>> simple rule engine _cannot_ find out which of the constituents of the union
>> it belongs to. Ie, it cannot make any intelligent deduction.
>>
>>  Can you please clarify the above point - reasoners do consistency check
> (class with no possible instance) and classification (identify inferred
> sub/super class), the above example of inferring class membership seems to
> be a RDFS entailment.
>
>
>> A similar issue arises with:
>>
>>
>> <owl:Class rdf:about="Time">
>>    <owl:equivalentClass>
>> I.e., again, we do not have a Union.
>>
>>  This follows from the best practices of creating "defined versus
> "primitive" class to enable reasoners to check that time values in PROV can
> only be instant or interval. But, we can easily remove this constraint.
>
>  We will try to resolve these issues in discussion with DM editors and
> make prov-o compliant with RL.
>
> Thanks.
>
>  Best,
> Satya
>
>  I am not sure what this means back in the model that is transcribed into
>> OWL.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#OWL_2_RL
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 23:24 , Satya Sahoo wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > After two meetings by the PROV-O team on Feb 13 and Feb 14 [1], we have
>> updated the OWL file and made it available for review by the WG [2].
>> >
>> > We would like to note that we support only the wasStartedBy defined
>> between an activity and an agent, and not wasStartedBy defined between
>> activity and activity, and activity and entity (the definition of
>> wasStartedBy is defined in three ways by DM-TPWD in Section 6.2 and Section
>> 5.3.2.2).
>> >
>> > All feedback is welcome!
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Satya
>> >
>> > [1] Minutes of the PROV-O telcon:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-13
>> > [2] PROV-O OWL File:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>>
>>
>>  ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>