- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:48:22 -0500
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Khalid, if we brought back subproperties of prov:qualified, (prov:hadUsage) wiht ranges to the subclasses of Involvement, would that address your concern? Thanks, Tim On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:59 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > In the prov-o ontology, the involvement class is used as a mean for giving a structure to the ontology. There are different types of involvement, e.g., Usage, Generation and Derivation. However, as it is, the ontology allows specifying an instance of Involvement that is not an instance of any of its sub-classes. That should not be allowed. > > In OWL, the notion of abstract class does not exist, however, one thing that can be done to avoid the above issue is to ass a constraint specifying that Involvement is equivalent to the class constructed by unionining its sub-class. While this solution is plausible, I am not sure if this constraint is OWL-RL compatible. I suspect so, but we need a confirmation. > > The same problem occurs in other cases in the ontology where the classes have been introduced for shaping the structure of the ontology, for example Element, ActivityInvolvement, EntityInvolvement and AgentInvolvement. > > khalid > >
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 04:49:02 UTC