Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

Don't know about Timed.. Tim? There is no common time superproperty any
longer.

What will Timed give us?

restrictions had to go to stay in RL.. ;(

so we can do it with just prov:agent and prov:AgentInvolvement and not be
subclass/subprop of entity/EntityInvolvement.
On Feb 21, 2012 12:55 PM, "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Stian.
> A couple of things:
>
>    1. what happened to Timed?
>    2. I think we could have property "agent" subproperty of "entity" with
>    domain "AgentInvolvement" and range "Agent".
>    This will address some of the issues that Luc had yesterday about
>    linking entities in associations.
>    I realize that with the current restriction (entity only Agent) it may
>    not be necessary, but I think it clarifies things for users.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
> 2012/2/21 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46, Daniel Garijo
>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>
>> > Why the propery "tracedTo" is not a subproperty of "involved"? It
>> relates an
>> > Element to an Element too.
>>
>> Should be involved now.
>>
>> > Do we need "involved"? What is its use appart from creating a hierarchy?
>>
>> It shows that a binary relationship can also be expressed using
>> qualified and Involvement. However the link from individual properties
>> to that Involvement is not shown - it is by convention only.
>>
>> > @Stian: I don't see how Start could be an EntityInvolvement, could you
>> > please explain? It is weird to have "End" under
>> > activityInvolvement and not "Start" :)
>>
>> I know, I don't like it.
>>
>> This is due to prov:Start appearing in both
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting_again
>>
>> however the second form does not talk about the agent. If I keep Start
>> under AgentInvolvement, then the activity-to-activity Starting_again
>> scenario would in OWL interpretation introduce a phantom agent.
>>
>> So now I left it at the top - but that would allow you to make a Start
>> without either the agent and the activity. Perhaps this can be used
>> for qualifying prov:startedAt.
>>
>>
>> > I agree with Khalid in that "entity" and "activity" properties should be
>> > renamed. From a usability pov is confusing to use
>> > the same name for classes and properties (even if they are different
>> URIs).
>>
>> Yes - we agreed in general earlier to use verb forms in past tense.
>> The problem is to make the property name make sense for all the
>> subclasses. "hadQualifiedEntity" obviously did not work well.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Are we going to delete the subproperties of "qualified"?
>>
>> Yes, that was an important aspect of Tim's approach.
>>
>>
>> > Since qualified links an element to an Involvement, I think that we
>> could
>> > use them wrong:
>> > :ent a prov:Entity;
>> >       prov:qualified [ a prov:Usage;
>> >                             prov:hadRole :role1]
>> > This is consistent according to our ontology (usage has some entities,
>> but
>> > in the open world assumption it doesn't have to be asserted). Should we
>> > allow it?
>>
>> There are lots of stupid things which are allowed by the OWL, for
>> instance making multiple inconsistent Generations, having
>> wasGeneratedAt times that don't overlap the startedAt/endedAt times of
>> the generating activity, etc. Checking those kind of things should not
>> be the job of the OWL ontology, but by a set a of rules.
>>
>>
>> However the ontology should guide the user towards the correct usage.
>> That's Tim's approach with the "hadSpatialExtent min 0 Location" kind
>> of subclasses - that gives a hint that it could have a location,
>> without requiring it.
>>
>> However super-properties and super-classes make it look like you can
>> use them directly. It now looks like you can say:
>>
>> :entity1 prov:qualified [
>>  a prov:EntityInvolvement;
>>  prov:entity :entity2;
>>  prov:hadTemporalExtent :t .
>> ] .
>>
>> - but this is a half-baked statement where you don't know if we're
>> talking about derivation, attribution or quotation. All  you can
>> conclude is :entity1 prov:involved :entity2.  Perhaps that's a useful
>> statement in a few applications, but for most parts it would be silly.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>
>