Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

BTW, if would be helpful to include URLs to the section that is being discussed.



>> Usage
>> --- misses a property hadActivity
>> 


prov:hadQualifiedUsage stands in place of hadActivity

these two properties are owl:inverseOf, but we are not defining hadActivity.
we are using hadQualifiedUsage to point from the Activity to the Involvement to maintain Activities and Entitites and principle instances. 

I added this note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage


> 
> I don't understand what you expect to change here.  There is no hadActivity construct in either PROV-O or PROV-DM, so I can't just change the mapping to include this.

The only requirement DM provides is that we associate the two, which we have done.

> 
> There is a link from the activity to the usage labeled hadQualifiedUsage.  The hadActivity link would be the inverse of that.  

+1

> However, the edges here are meant to be consistent with the direction "towards the past".  

In this case, it is to maintain the Activity as the "more principal" instance, which is done by making it the subject of the triple.
I've jotted down some http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Mapping_goals

> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with hadActivity going in the reverse direction.
> 
> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities.

If proposed, I say -1

> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Bundle: not part of DM3?
> 
> I don't understand what would address this issue.  There is a Bundle section that contains some discussion of Account and RecordContainer.  Since Account was put on the endangered species list at F2F2, my impression was that they were not required to be handled in the first draft of the mapping. 

Despite the "endangered species list", I put in a mapping for accounts with the expectation that "Account" would be renamed to "Bundle" (and with the hope that it would just be called "Provenance" because that is what it is...)

@James, I need to add a fourth column of http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account but am fighting latex.
Could you add the fourth column?

"nil" in a new far left column, except for where "name" appears on the left.


BTW, I added a prov:specializationOf triple and axiom to the mapping for accounts. sd:graph


> 
> Please be more specific about what aspects of bundles you think aren't handled here and should be.
> 
> Proposal: Defer until status of bundles/accounts/record containers is stable.
> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> There is no time information associated with Entity in DM3
>> 
> 
> Correct, but I don't see what you think should change (in the mapping, PROV-O, or PROV-DM).  The rule for entity() records does not link the entity to a time.  It is possible to link any Thing to a time, including an Entity, but so what?
> 
> Proposal: No change.


Agreed. What tidbit of what document leads to this question?


> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> Association: 
>> hadQualifiedAssociation property missing

missing from where?

it's at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association

I see it in "now" in    [  ] a prov:Entity; prov:specializationOf <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl>

:hadQualifiedAssociation
    a owl:ObjectProperty ;
    rdfs:domain :Activity ;
    rdfs:range :Association .



> 
> I interpret this as an issue with Prov-O, which (if addressed by adding such a property) should be reflected in the mapping.
> 
> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in mapping.
> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Association: 
>> hadQualifiedEntity has range Entity,
>> but it should be Agent ....
>> hadQualifiedAgent with range Agent,


I added this extra triple and the corresponding axiom at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association


>> 
> 
> This is a PROV-O issue, which if addressed there can be easily reflected in the mapping.
> 
> Proposal: Raise against PROV-O, and reflect any ensuing change in mapping.
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Association
>> --- misses a functional property hadActivity
>> 
> 
> Same response as for Usage.

+1 

I added a note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Agent_Association


> 
> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a hadActivity property, and reflect any ensuing change in mapping.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Association
>> ---- adoptedPlan i would have thought it had to be functional
> 
> This is a PROV-O issue.
> 
> proposal: Raise against PROV-O.  No change is needed to the mapping.
> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Delegation: what is it?
>> is it what is called Responsibility Record in WD3?
>> 
> 
> I'm not sure (didn't write this part), but I believe it is a class that is populated by the identifiers of responsibility records (as Usage for used, Generation for wasGeneratedBy).  This seems obvious from the way it is used in the rule, but deserves explanation.  


I'd love to rename Delegation to Responsibility. Please let us do it.
Added a note at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Responsibility



> 
> Proposal: Add a sentence to ProvRDF explaining this.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> No collection
>> 
> 
> True, and the reason is the same as for Bundle - constructs that were in-flux or endangered as of F2F2 were not expected to be mapped.
> 
> Proposal: Defer until collections stabilize.


Proposal: ACTION on Stian to add ProvRDF rules.

> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> HadTemporalValue
>> ---  is not functional
> 
> True, but this is a PROV-O issue.
> 
> Proposal: Re-raise against Prov-O.  No change needed to mapping.
> 
>> --- has QualifiedInvolvement in its domain but


I see that it has a domain of owl:Thing.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

   168     <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="hadTemporalValue">
   169         <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/>
   170         <rdfs:label xml:lang="en"
   171             >has temporal value</rdfs:label>
   172         <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&owl;Thing"/>
   173         <rdfs:range rdf:resource="Time"/>
   174     </owl:ObjectProperty>


-Tim

>>      Association and Delegation don't have temporal information
>> 
> 
> This is an example where the mapping may suggest changes to PROV-DM.
> 
> It's true that in Prov-DM, these two events don't have temporal information.  Thus, in PROV-O, we could represent such information that cannot be expressed in PROV-DM.  But so what?  I don't think we agreed to the constraint that everything one can express in PROV-O can also be expressed in PROV-DM; the goal of the mapping was just to show how to express (almost) everything in PROV-DM in RDF.
> 
> If you think PROV-O should not be able to express times for association and delegation because PROV-DM cannot, please raise against PROV-O.  
> 
> If you think there is a round-tripping property the mapping should have that it doesn't have, please formulate and raise it as a separate issue against the mapping.  (This could ultimately imply changes to several things, so the mapping is an appropriate place to raise it.)
> 
> Proposal: Raise question whether Association and Delegation should have time information against PROV-DM; no change needed to mapping.
> 
> --James
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
>