Re: PROV-ISSUE-305 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (4/6) Jun [Ontology]

Hi Jun,

> There are also some other object properties appear odd to me:
>
> - hasQualifiedControl, there is no range definition
>
> - hasQualifiedEntity, should the domain be some sort of subclass of
> QualifiedInvolvement?
>
> - wasEndedBy and wasStartedBy do not have domain or range definitions
>
> All these properties have been superseeded by others, which in fact do
have domain and range.
OWL Time references have been removed.

> And there are 9 (!) object properties to associate an entity with
> another entity or a subclass of it. That's a lot of different types of
> object properties between two classes! Is there any way to simplify it,
> either in the DM doc or in the ontology?
>
> It seems that if we simplify the relationships we produce an ontology that
allows us to assert more things
than the allowed ones in the DM. Some of these properties are also
shortcuts.

> There are not enough annotations in the ontology. I still need to spend
> some more time to read the DM doc to understand what classes like Plan,
> Association or Bundle are for. My bad. :(
>
> What do you think about the current version of the ontology? Can we close
this issue?
Thanks,
Daniel

2012/3/5 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-305 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (4/6) Jun  [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/305
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/4F3D153C.7060000@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#WG_feedback_Feb_2012
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-O_Ontology:_Reviewer_feedback
>
>
>
>
>