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

Yes it can closed, thanks Tim and Daniel

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 14 Mar 2012, at 23:21, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:

Luc,

I think that you raised this issue where you'd like the "Involvement" class to be "static", which is not something one can or should state in OWL.

Can we close the issue, since the qualifiedX properties have direct ranges?

Thanks,
Tim

On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:

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<mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@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<http://www.w3.org/mid/EMEW3%7Caa01983af1afff1ecca538db884f0120o1MEfY08L.Moreau%7Cecs.soton.ac.uk%7C4F46501B.2@ecs.soton.ac.uk> :

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto: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".