Re: PROV-ISSUE-306 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (5/6) Luc [Ontology]

Hi Daniel

Yes please close, as well as issue-321 you just raised.
I think the latest changes address my concerns,

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

On 15 Mar 2012, at 00:37, "Daniel Garijo" <<>> wrote:

Hi Luc,

Dear prov-o team,

In my review, I focused on a subset usage, derivation, generation, and

I raised a few issues:

- (ISSUE-253)
   some properties (e.g. activity, entity, adoptedPlan) of involvements
need to made functional

- (ISSUE-253)
   the domain of hadTemporalExtent is broader than in prov-dm

- (ISSUE-262)
   the ontology seems to allow an entity to be used (with qualified
usage) by another entity.

- (ISSUE-263)
    Involvements such as usage can be shared by multiple activities.

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.

I'll raise this as a separate issue. My opinion is that we should add an note in the documentation
explaining that the "Involvement" class is for creating a structured hierarchy, and that should not
be used directly. If some one wants to extend the model, it should extend the subclasses instead.

Choice of name: I understand 'hadTemporalExtent' as 'had a duration'.
But Usage and Generation,
for instance, have got instantaneous time. I don't understand why
xsd:dateTime is not directly associated
by means of a data property.

Now "InstantaneousEvent" is atTime dateTime. "atTime" is a data property.

Given that everything is raised separately or has been addressed, can we close issue 306?


2012/3/5 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <<>>
PROV-ISSUE-306 (TLebo): PROV-O OWL review (5/6) Luc  [Ontology]

Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: Ontology|d505635e75ac02f386bea5657febc725o1M9U208L.Moreau||<>

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 06:17:34 UTC