Re: PROV-ISSUE-302 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (1/6) Paolo [Ontology]

Hi Paolo,

> Hi,
>    as requested, a few comments on the ontology (as of now: it's a rapidly moving or perhaps crystallizing target so some of the
> comments may have been superseded already)
>
> ==== A) on class hierarchies:
>
> 1 ====
> dm says: hasOriginalSource is a strict sub-relation of wasDerivedFrom.
> but in -o it's a sub-property of wasAssociatedWith
>
> Solved in the current version of the ontology

> 2 ===
> tracedTo property hierarchy. some subclassing is part of DM, notably
>    wasDerivedFrom  implies tracedTo
> but I am not sure about others, e.g. specializationOf, wasAttributedTo, and more.
>
> Is there a justification for this hierarchy?
>
> Would you mind to review the new version of the ontology? I think that
This issue has been addressed.

>
> ====  B) on inferences:
>
> Some inferences are captured, namely those that map to subclass relations, while others are not. Was this done systematically? I
> didn't check throughout  but for instance
>
> wasQuotedFrom =>  wasAttributedTo in DM, but not in -o.
> wasQuotedFrom =>  wasDerivedFrom in DM, but not in -o.
>
> I will raise a separate issue with the attribution part. Quotation and
derivation is solved.

>
> there is a rdfs:comment on this though:
> "TODO: Shouldn't Quotation be a subtype of Derivation (and same for the binary relations?) -Tim  -- "
>
> ==== C) what is the intended usage of the involvement property (not the Involvement class)?
>
> We have used "involved" to group all the binary relationships toghether.
It is also a placeholder for extensibility purposes.

>
> ==== D) is the *qualified* property still needed?
>
> It has been replaced for qualifiedX (where the X is the involvement to
which this relationship is linked).

>
> ==== E) 6.6 wasSummaryOf is a strict sub-relation of wasDerivedFrom.
>    this is not the case in -o
>
> (then again, summary may disappear in the future)
>
> It has dissapeared.

>
> ===  F) Trace Class
>
> rdfs:comment says "A prov:Trace can be from any prov:Element to any prov:Element, so it cannot be a subclass of
> prov:EntityInvolvement or prov:ActivityInvolvement."
>
>   but then Trace is in fact a subclass of EntityInvolvement?
>
> I'll raise a separate issue. It looks like a typo.

>
> ==  G) equivalent classes EntityInvolvement (asnd  ActivityInvolvement)
>
> why not just subclasses of (entity some Entity)? note that an OWL reasoner won't do anything with these equivalences at the moment.
> I think Stian recently addressed this
>
> EntityInvolvement is currently disjoint form ActivityInvolvement

>
> ==== H) class Role
>
> is this class still needed?  isn't this subsumed by general attributes?
> and if we keep it, currently the domain of hadRole includes Derivation, however this seems incorrect as there are no roles
> associated to derivation
>
> Well, since Role is one of the main attributes for qualifying the
relationships and it is very close to provenance, we decided to make it a
class in the ontology. I'll raise a separate issue for the domain of
hadRole including Derivation.

>
> ===
> Collections missing (Stian working on this I think)
>
>  I'll raise a separate issue for this.

>
>
> --Paolo
>
> Since all the concerns are raised in separate issues or have been
addressed, can we close this issue?
Thanks,
Daniel

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

> PROV-ISSUE-302 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (1/6) Paolo [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/302
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/4F43D13B.3050207@ncl.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
>
>
>
>