Are qualified<Foo> relations IFPs? (was: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call))

Hi,

I don't think the qualified<Foo> relations need to be inverse functional, and in 
some cases it may be important that they are not.

I don't think it matters if there are (say) multiple qualifiedUsage classes 
between (say) a given entity and an activity, as long as they refer to the same 
values.

When we start to look at provenance of provenance, I think it's important that 
they be separate, so that provenance of qualifiedUsage assertions that provide 
different information facets about the usage can be assessed accordingly.

There will be constraints on what are considered valid (satisfiable) overall 
provenance assertions that flow from the formal semantics of PROV, so that 
conflicting claims can be treated as such.

Sorry this is all vague and hand-wavy, but I wanted to weigh in against imposing 
ontological constraints/commitments that may turn out to be unnecessary or even 
harmful.  For specs based around an open-world model, it's easier to add 
constraints later than to retract them.

#g
--


On 09/07/2012 20:08, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 10 July 2012 08:42:34 UTC