- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:21:58 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I've committed http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/d59de1d6a8ba to include chain properties such as: > (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used . Note that Stian's RL checker gives the following "RL violations", which we will need to "justify" in the appendix of the next PROV-O HTML release: Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in FunctionalObjectProperty axiom: [FunctionalObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] Regards, Tim On May 7, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-372 (qualified-property-chains): ( prov:qualifedUsage prov:entity ) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/372 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: > > http://www.w3.org/mid/D3BF08F5-B11F-4766-919D-FD81DD9D59C7@w3.org > > (I have not found yet the semantics document, I am not sure whether what I write makes sense...) > > Looking at the Prov-o and the qualified terms. Taking the first time in the list, ie, qualifiedUsage. Isn't it correct that, at least conceptually, if I have > > ex:E a prov:Entity; > prov:qualifiedUsage [ > a prov:Usage ; > prov:entity ex:E > ] . > > then, again conceptually, I would expect something like > > ex:E prov:used ex:E . > > to be 'present'. It strikes me that this is exactly what the OWL 2 property chains do (and those are still OWL RL), by saying: > > (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used . > > Isn't it worth adding it to the OWL ontology? Or do I miss something here? > > Ivan > > > >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:22:30 UTC