- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:39:20 -0400
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Daniel, Please let me know if we can close this issue. I have summarized the discussions and conclusions below. Regards, Tim 1) During our telecon yesterday, the prov-o team agreed to add the axiom: ActivityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] . Because the domain of prov:activity is ActivityInvolvement, these properties are "effectively" mutually exclusive. "If you have a prov:activity, you are a prov:ActivityInvolvement". "If you are a prov:ActivityInvolvement, you do not have a prov:hadActivity". "If you have a prov:hadActivity, you are not a prov:ActivityInvolvement". 2) During the meeting, Daniel mentioned the "symmetric" problem and proposed to add: Derivation subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] . Which I believe has the same intent and purposes as just described for ActivityInvolvement. "One should use prov:hadActivity to reference a Derivation's Activity, not prov:activity". This applies to not only Derivation, but any other EntityInvolvement as well. 3) As Daniel points out, Invalidation is a ActivityInvolvement (DM: "Invalidation is the start of the destruction, cessation, or expiry of an existing entity by an ____activity____.") And so must also not use hadActivity to make the reference (instead, prov:activity). So, Involvement is incorrectly in the domain of hadActivity. THREE OWL Changes (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/feec0dc293e6): * added ActivityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] . * added EntityInvolvement subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] . * removed Invalidation from "prov:hadActivity rdfs:domain [ owl:unionOf ( Derivation Invalidation Responsibility Start ) ]" No new RL violations result from these changes. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-05-21#Daniel On May 18, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On May 18, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/378 >> >> Raised by: Daniel Garijo >> On product: Ontology >> >> We should clarify the difference between prov:activity and prov:hadActivity (so people don't use prov:hadActivity in qualifiedGenerations). >> >> We could add a restirction on Generation: >> Generation subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] . >> > > ^^ This is within RL and states the restriction that would prevent the confusion between activity and hadActivity. > >> And, since the difference between activity and hadActivity is that the former is not optional: >> Generation subclassOf [ on prov:activity min 1 ] . > > ^^ min 1 goes against RL, which is why we've been avoiding them. > >> >> Also, we should add an rdf:comment explaining this decision. > > ^^ Do you have a proposed comment to put in? > > THanks, > TIm > >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:49:50 UTC