Re: PROV-O call summary

Hi Luc,

Thanks for looking through our notes.

On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Can you clarify what you intent with "prov:follows and prov:precedes properties missing".

prov:follows a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:domain time:Instant; rdfs:range time:Instant .
similar for precedes.
(and I need to raise an issue to ask for "equals")

> 
> Follows and precedes are not part of the data model in the sense that they cannot be asserted by asserters. 

Cannot or generally would not?
Can they be inferred?
If so, then some RDF predicate is required to state the axiom and the result of applying the axiom.
Also, what can be inferred can be directly asserted. Why the distinction?

> 
> However derived ordering constraints must be satisfied for prov records.
> 
> It may be (or not) useful to be able to express these constraints in rdf, and therefore an ontological definition could make sense.  But it's not the prov-o ontology, it's in prov-o-constraints,

I don't see why a strong distinction between prov-o ontology and prov-o constraints needs to be made, other than that the group should settle the vocabulary and structure before tackling the more contentious axioms. By the time they are both done, I see them as two parts of a whole.

>  or whatever ontology extending prov-o.

Seems a bit odd that associations among Events would be in an extension, when they are fundamental to DM.

Regards,
Tim


> 
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 4 Jan 2012, at 22:44, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> prov-wg,
>> 
>> The PROV-O team met today to review a list of topics where PROV-O is out of sync with PROV-DM.
>> 
>> The summary and notes are at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-04#Summary
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 02:19:20 UTC