RE: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

Hi Tim

If wasGeneratedBy is not functional , why is wasGeneratedAt functional?

Indeed, we could have multiple qualified generations, and therefore multiple generation times.
(note this is all scruffy provenance)

Luc


____________________________________
From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:03 PM
To: Luc Moreau
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last   call [PROV-O HTML]

Luc,


On Jul 9, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> Note: I think qualifiedXXX is *inverse* functional.
>
> Hence, I don't think that #5 follows from this.

You're right. I'm sorry.

Then, can you elaborate #5? I don't understand the issue.

Thanks,
Tim

>
> Luc
> ________________________________________
> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:50 PM
> To: Luc Moreau
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last  call [PROV-O HTML]
>
> Luc,
>
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Hi prov-o team,
>>
>
> …
>
>>
>> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional?
>> Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a qualified Influence
>> for multiple subjects. This is not intended.
>>
>> The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional before, but I think
>>  this characteristic was incorrectly removed.
>>
>>
>
> …
>
>
>>
>> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en
>>
>> --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional.
>>
>> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, endedAtTime,
>>
>>
>
>
>
> This does not seem to be separate from your #2. Does changing qualifiedGeneration to function resolve your #5?
>
> Also, does prov:generatedAtTime's functionality come from prov-constraints or prov-dm?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444
>>>
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>>
>>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release.
>>>
>>> The document is at:
>>>
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html
>>>
>>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to the following questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 14:10:30 UTC