- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 07:57:10 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I would hope this is a non-issue. E.g. property paths in SPARQL include provision for including inverse properties that are not explicitly defined: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths (I guess this is just a reminder, but the "direction" of RDF properties places no technical constraint on accessibility - one can, in principle (and in practice with most triple stores) traverse a property backwards as easily as forwards. Any need for explicit inverse properties is almost entirely for human consumption (and authoring), and their absence shouldn't constrain applications in any way. Indeed, defining inverse properties is more likely to create problems of incompatibility by introducing different ways to express the same assertion.) #g -- On 03/03/2012 16:28, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-277 (TLebo): Supporting property chains [Ontology] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/277 > > Raised by: Stephen Cresswell > On product: Ontology > > During our group telecon, someone (Stephen Cresswell?) mentioned a concern that the directionality of some properties in prov-o would inhibit the use of property chains. > > Although "directionality" can be handled with owl:inverses, we are not including many inverses in prov-o for brevity (however, we are maintaining a component at [1]). Although "anyone" can define their own inverse of a prov-o property to achieve their property chains, this will inhibit interoperability. > > > [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components/inverses.ttl > > > >
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 08:51:50 UTC