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

Luc,

Surely the advantage of OWL-RL is that it makes inference practical and
scalable for a large fragment of OWL2.  

You seem to be advocating a split into a (possibly RDFS) ontology,
supporting only trivial inference, and a (possibly OWL-DL) ontology, in
which interesting inference is possible but not really practical. So
neither ontology would enable OWL-RL reasoning to be exploited?

I think that would be mistake. If there must be a split, then the OWL-RL
compliant branch ought to support actual deployment of a reasoner to do
something useful. That would *not* be a minimalistic ontology.

Examples of useful things would include the ability to infer properties
which are defined on other properties.

Stephen Cresswell

Tel:  +44 (0) 01603 69 6926

Web:  www.tso.co.uk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 24 February 2012 08:46
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology?
> [Ontology]
> 
> PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/268
> 
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0413.html,
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
>
________________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************************************
This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.
***********************************************************************************************

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 11:36:31 UTC