- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:26:18 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim, I am not sure I understand thos RL violation errors, actually. I thought property chains are part of RL. Or are these errors independent of the usage of property chains? Thanks Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 7 May 2012, at 19:21, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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 17:26:42 UTC