PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology]

PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology]

Raised by: Luc Moreau
On product: Ontology

Dear all,

For the record, I made a suggestion to Khalid yesterday, and it would be good if the prov-o team could consider it.

The details are not fully worked out, and I am sure lots of variants are possible.

The essence is to consider two separate ontologies:
- one minimalistic, a simple vocabulary, in which we allow (more or less) the same expressivity as in PROV-DM
- the other, more extensive, which provides a structure to the vocabulary, introduce super-classes and super-relations, has property chains, has more complex constraints.

For the purpose of this email, I call them prov and provs (for structure)

I believe this would address multiple concerns
- ISSUE-262, ISSUE-263: some of the more permissive assertions would be in provs not in prov. For me this solves the alignment issue.

- ISSUE-265: prov only is required to be OWL-RL (I think it could even be RDFS). provs does not have to be restricted by any specific profile.

Concretely, in the email to Khalid,
I suggested the following

:a1 a prov:Activity
   prov:used :e1
   prov:usage [a Usage
                       prov:usedEntity  :e1
                       prov:usedTime t]

Then, in prov-s (s for structure)

  prov:usedEntity subPropertyOf provs:entity
  prov:Usage subclassOf provs:EntityInvolvement
  prov:usedTime subRelationOf provs:hadTemporalExtent
  provs:entity domain: provs:EntityInvolvement
                      range  prov:Entity

   prov:usage subrelationOf provs:qualified
   provs:qualified domain: provs:Element
                            range: provs:Involvement
   prov:Activity subclassOf provs:Element
   prov:Entity subclassOf provs:Element

All the patterns are preserved. The concern about Involvement not
being abstract has disappeared. In prov, you can't express instance
of involvement, it's only in provs you can.

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 08:45:56 UTC