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

Hi Tim,

Coming back to #2.

How do you express the following rdf descriptions in the dm?

:a1 prov:used :e1
prov:qualifiedUsage :u1
:a2 prov:used :e2
prov:qualifiedUsage :u1
  
:u1 a prov:Usage
prov:entity :e1
prov:entity :e2
prov:atTime t


Luc
                   

________________________________________
From: Luc Moreau [L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 8:08 PM
To: Timothy Lebo
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]

Hi Tim,

We cannot really afford to wait till Thursday to make progress on this.
We need to try and resolve it by email.

For #2.
The reason for qualifiedXXX is inverse functional is that
when we write an expression such as
usage(id;a,e,t,[attr1=v1,attr2=v2])
there is a single activity and a single entity per usage.
So, qualifiedUsage is inverse functional and influencer is functional.
Likewise hadActivity/hadPlan/hadXXX are functional.

I pointed out that this was PROV-O specific, because the qualified pattern
is introduced by prov-o, not prov-dm.


For #5, I was just following your editorial note "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."

If qualifiedGeneration is not functional, I suppose that generatedAtTime cannot be functional.
But maybe, I am wrong.

Luc

________________________________________
From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 6:06 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,

The prov-o team discussed this during our telcon today.

Are the property characteristics that you suggest justified by DM?

You do point out that some are "PROV-O specific", but they should still have grounding in DM, right?

The team thinks that these characteristics should be discussed at the WG level.

Thanks,
Tim



On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

…

>
> 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.
>
> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per
> qualified pattern instance, isn't there.
>
> 4. Likewise:
> hadPlan: is functional
> hadUsage: is functional
> hadGeneration: is functional
> hadActivity: is functional
>
>   As per prov-dm.
>
> 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,
>
>
> 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 19:23:05 UTC