- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:54:59 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I don't think I like this split much.. in provA you had to spell out each of the involvements.. for instance :usage a prova:Usage ; prova:usingActivity :activity ; prova:usedEntity :entity . (and those classes/properties are not in any way related to say prova:Generation, prov:generatingActivity and prova:generatedEntity) while in provb we have the current structure with a prov:Involvement hierarchy and prov:entity/prov:activity. Add the binary relationship, and now we have 3 ways to express generation. How is this helping interoperability? I believe that if we do such a split, then the miniature version will have to do only the binary relationships. I have a stronger feeling that we should try to formalize guidance rules which everyone not interested in OWL-RL can use - even RL users can look at it to understand the ontology, but use the RL ontology for their reasoning. On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 13:19, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > To illustrate a possible split I have created: > - prova.owl > and > -provb.owl > in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/8b2302508d86/ontology/working-dir > > It's not complete at all, it focuses on Usage/Generation/Derivation. > Time and Role have not been encoded. > The structure-related classes appear in provb.owl, which imports prova.owl > > I believe that object properties and classes in prova.owl can be mapped back > to prov-dm. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > On 24/02/2012 09:45, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 13:55:51 UTC