Re: [PROV-O] Proposed OWL change: Dealing with Issue 568 (hadRole)

Thanks Stephan, you are right. However the current problem is that it is
not consistent with DM.

I have been looking further, and there are other properties where we have
just
a union in the domain (e.g., qualifiedInfluence, wasInfluencedBy,
atLocation). In
these cases the properties would have an empty domain in DL. I think that
it's better
to have it empty rather than allow inconsitencies with the DM.

Thus I still propose to make the change to the documents. Thoughts?
Best,
Daniel

2012/10/19 Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>

> Looking at the domain of hadRole again, I believe what we have right now
> is the result of the RL++ compromise.  The current domain in DL would be
> the intersection of prov:Influence and the union of prov:Association and
> prov:InstantaneousEvent, which equates to just the union of
> prov:Association and prov:InstantaneousEvent.  In RL, the union is ignored
> so the domain would be recognized as prov:Influence.  There was no way to
> get the domain aligned with the DM under RL, so adding Influence was a
> fallback, otherwise the domain would be unspecified.
>
> That is at least my recollection of why it is as it currently is.
>
> --Stephan
>
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
> wrote:
>
> Prov-o team:
> there seems to be a bug in the ontology, which Luc highlighted in the last
> telecon:
>
> prov:Influence is listed as domain of prov:hadRole, and this is not
> compatible
> with PROV-DM. I have checked the latest documents and the only changes to
> do are:
>
>    - Remove prov:Inflluence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the
>    ontology.
>    - Remove prov:Influence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the
>    Overview.html document.
>    - Remove prov:hadRole in the "described with properties" box in
>    Overview.html
>
> If nobody disagrees with these changes, I will commit them on Monday.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>