Re: [owl changed] Re: PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]

Thanks Tim!
I have closed the issue.
Best,
Daniel

2012/5/22 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> 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
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>