- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:07 +0000
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:44, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > In addition to the qualified generation, prov-o allows defining the object > property wasGeneratedBy between an entity and an activity. If we allow for > the creation of qualified generation that is not associated with an > activity, it means that in certain cases we may have qualified generation > without having a corresponding wasGeneratedFor property. I am wondering if > that may lead to inconsistencies at the level of the ontology. You are right, there is nothing with QualifiedInvolvement that requires it to be bound to an activity, but in all our uses of it there is an implicit property of hadQualifiedActivity as the purpose of a QI is to link an entity to an activity with some additional properties. The properties of Activity; hadQualifiedControl, hadQualifiedEntity etc. can be thought of as subproperties of an imaginary hadQualifiedInvolvement - which would have been inverse of hadQualifiedActivity. However using hadQualifiedInvolvement alone would also be confusing, and hadQualifiedActivity would just be a superficial information. I don't think we can put this constraint into the OWL file directly without affecting the OWL-level or introducing lots of extra properties, but it is probably a constraint we should keep in mind for separate rules. Tim - did we have something on this in the earlier QI proposals? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:09:11 UTC