Re: PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]

prov-wg,

On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
> 
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Ontology
> 
> 
> The definition of hadRole in prov-o
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole
> 
> lists 
> prov:Association or prov:End or prov:Generation or prov:Invalidation or prov:Start or prov:Usage
> in its domain, which is what prov-dm states,
> but also
> prov:Influence
> which is not compatible with prov-dm.


It depends on what is meant by "compatible".

The appendix at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#prov-o-owl-profile
lists the "OWL-RL violation" of hadRole's domain,

prov:hadRole rdfs:domain [ (prov:Association prov:End prov:Generation prov:Invalidation prov:Start prov:Usage) ]


 and follows by providing a more general assertion that suits (and informs) OWL RL:

prov:hadRole	rdfs:domain	prov:Influence
The appendix also clarifies in narrative the meaning of rdfs:domain that can be mis-interpreted in other modeling paradigms (and "prov-dm"):

The more general domain should not be interpreted as saying, e.g., "prov:hadActivity can be used with any prov:Influence", but as "Anything using prov:hadActivity is (at least) a prov:Influence".

The appendix also states that  "some property domains or ranges have also been defined with the closest common superclass for the classes in the [OWL-RL-violating] union"


Tim