Re: PROV-ISSUE-264 (TLebo): citing an Involvement and not a more specific Involvement. [Ontology]

Hi Tim,
I don't understand why this issue is raised against the ontology, if the
proposal is for the DM.
As far as the ontology is concerned, what Luc pointed out about
involvements is true.

In order to move forward, I think we either should change the subject of
the issue to DM or, alternatively,
explain in the ontology that the "Involvement" class is for creating a
hierarchy
and extensibility purposes, and that the class itself should not be used.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/2/24 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-264 (TLebo): citing an Involvement and not a more specific
> Involvement. [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/264
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/EMEW3|aa01983af1afff1ecca538db884f0120o1MEfY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F46501B.2@ecs.soton.ac.uk:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> Furthermore, the ontology allows for instances of involvements to be
> expressed, without
> specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not aligned with
> the data model.
>
> This is a feature, not a bug. Even if Involvement were defined as
> equivalent to the union of subclasses, it would still be possible (and
> consistent) to assert that something is an Involvement without saying what
> the subclass is. We simply wouldn't know.
>
>
> Tim proposed:
>
> Then perhaps DM should add the general notion of "Involvements"?
> If encoding DM in OWL led to this natural organization, perhaps it's
> reflecting something that DM has latently.
>
> Perhaps this could be added as an "Extension Point": Other kinds of
> Involvements may be provided for domain-specific purposes, and
> interoperable tools would handle them at the generic understanding of
> "Involvement".
>
>
>
>
>