- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:40:43 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc, I can see why you opted for this kind of split, but I have wrongly assumed that another kind of split will take place when the ontology is mature enough. In particular, I was hoping that at a later stage, not to split the ontology, but try to extract a provo-lite, that is involvement free. In other words, a version of the ontology where there are not qualified attributes for relations. I believe that such an ontology will more useful for end users, and that keeping in the light version the classes and properties that are present in the current ontology for readability or accessibility purposes will not harm. The light version of the ontology cannot be mapped back to prov-dm, but the full ontology can be used for that purpose. Thanks, khalid On 27/02/2012 13:19, Luc Moreau 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 14:41:08 UTC