Re: PROV-ISSUE-267 (TLebo): annotate all subproperty axioms to justify them [Ontology]

Stephan,

On May 31, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> Hi Khalid, Tim, Paulo
> 
> I am reviewing the property annotations on sub-properties of prov:tracedTo
> 
> Comments:
> 
> 1) I think we should use rdfs:isDefinedBy to reference the latest PROV-DM document with an anchor to the section about the specific term.

That property usually links to a RDF vocabulary in practice, as suggested by the recommendation:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby

(that is, the following statement would not be appropriate:

       rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby> .


You don't like that we are using our own annotation property, prov:prov-dm ?
We are defining it in our ontology [1] with a comment:

    <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#prov-dm">
        <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">A reference to the principal section of the PROV-DM document that describes this concept.</rdfs:comment>

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl


> 
> 2) Why define prov:category and prov:component annotations when a rdfs:isDefinedBy annotation would suffice and be easier for users to follow?

rdfs:isDefinedBy usually points to an RDF vocabulary that describes the predicate in RDF.

prov:category reflects prov-o's organization; 
prov:component reflects the DM's.
As annotations, they are intended to provide supplemental information.


> 
> 3) Why define the prov:inverse annotation?  Either we define inverse properties or we do not, but suggestions via annotations are not very useful.  Tools and queries cannot be constructed around suggestions via annotations.  I understand the issue of constructing queries using inverse properties when an endpoint may or may not support reasoning of inverse properties, but why define an annotation that approximates (half-heartedly) an existing OWL axiom?

The prov-o team discussed this over several weeks during our telecons, and agreed about a month ago to what is now described in 

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html#names-of-inverse-properties

The prov:inverse property has a comment:

    <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#inverse">
        <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">PROV-O does not define all property inverses. The directionalities defined in PROV-O should be given preference over those not defined. However, if users wish to name the inverse of a PROV-O property, the local name given by prov:inverse should be used.</rdfs:comment>


> 
> 4) There appears to be dual usage of the prov:qualifiedForm annotation.  It has been used to reference both the Involvement class and the property that references the Involvement class.  For example prov:wasAttributed to has a prov:qualifiedForm annotation referencing both prov:Attribution and prov:qualifiedAttribution.

Yes.

>  Based on the description associated with prov:qualifiedForm, I think ti should only reference prov:Attribution.

If the description is inconsistent, then it needs to be updated to suit "pointing at both".
Much of the prov-o automation is built around this "dual use".

> 
> Also, the comment on prov:qualifiedFrom should change 'prov:Involved subclass' -> 'prov:Involvement subclass'

I'll update. Thanks.

> 
> 'This annotation property links a prov:involved subproperty with a prov:Involved subclass.'
> 
> should be
> 
> 'This annotation property links a prov:involved subproperty with a prov:Involvement subclass.'
> 
> This is an issue with prov:wasTracedTo and all its sub-properties.

I'll look at that.

Regards,
Tim

> 
> --Stephan
> 
> On May 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Tim and Paolo,
>> 
>> I updated the ontology to include annotations that justify the hierarchy of sub-properties. In particular, was wasAttributedTo, wasDerivedFrom, derivedByInsertionFrom, derivedbyRemovalFrom, hadOriginalSource, wasQuotedFrom, and wasRevisionOf. Regarding the properties involved and involvee, the comments used for their annotation justify the existence of their su-properties, so I don't think we need to add justification for each of their direct sub-properties.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you are happy with the update and accept to close this issue.
>> 
>> PS: Tim, I updated the ProvenanceOntology.owl, I notice that there is also another file called ProvenanceOntologyFull.owl. I didn't update this one.
>> 
>> Thanks, khalid
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24/02/2012 06:05, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-267 (TLebo): annotate all subproperty axioms to justify them [Ontology]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: Ontology
>>> 
>>> all subproperty axioms need to be annotated to justify why they are subproperties.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 13:11:50 UTC