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

Paolo,

I made tracedTo transitive per your comment below.

dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/9c42eafe5cc3

-Tim

On Mar 14, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:

> 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 comments may have been superseded already)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
> 
> 
> 
>