- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:54:46 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, I'm using a RL checker that Stian made for us to use. It is described at [1]. I'm not sure what the messages intend to convey. Regards, Tim [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#JAR_checker On May 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 17:55:17 UTC