- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:57:57 +0100
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|86468bd6351a236dd965ee390851b349o9MAw208l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50866A25>
Hi Daniel, I just responded to Tim with a comment/question and a suggestion. Luc On 10/23/2012 09:41 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Tim has pointed to the section of the document where this is explained > (in the thread of the issue): > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0209.html > > I think that given the explanation, we don't need to change anything. > Luc was the one to raise the issue, so I'll wait for his response > before closing it. > > The issue is now pending review. > > Best, > Daniel > > 2012/10/19 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> > > Hi Stephan, > > I think you summarize the issue well. Maybe we should see what > others think about this choice. > > Another solution would be to add a reminder about how inference > works in OWL... but maybe that's redundant :-) > > regards > Paul > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu > <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote: > > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl > <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote: > >> Hi Stephan, >> >> Here's the concrete issue: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568 >> >> It seems the question is, do want want to make the inference >> you outlined? >> >> I agree that all the relations that are allowed to have a >> role are influence but dm specifically doesn't list influence >> as something you can apply a role to. Thus, this is something >> you probably don't want to explicitly state. > > I think right now the best argument for removing Influence > from the domain is the confusion that it is causing. > > From a modeling perspective I believe it is consistent with > the DM, but confusion about the semantics of property domains > is causing a great deal of stumbling on this. > > We aren't saying that all influence relations can have a role, > just that any relation (DM term) that has a role can be > inferred to be an influence relation (which I believe is > consistent with the DM text through inheritance of the > relation 'type'). > > I think the issue here is trying to get the most reasoning > possible while in the RL restriction. Since Influence is the > most specific RL-compatible super-class that covers all the > role-able classes, that is the most detailed domain we can set > that an RL reasoner will act upon. > > I guess at this point I am ok with removing Influence from the > domain, but I would argue that the current modeling is > consistent with the DM. We should make the change because the > modeling causes more user confusion than the benefit of the > inference. > > --Stephan > >> >> cheers >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Stephan Zednik >> <zednis@rpi.edu <mailto:zednis@rpi.edu>> wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Garijo >> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es >> <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Stephan, you are right. However the current >>> problem is that it is not consistent with DM. >> >> I think it is worthwhile to remember what a property >> domain in RDFS implies. >> >> |rdfs:domain| is an instance of |rdf:Property| >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property> that is >> used to state that any resource that has a given property >> is an instance of one or more classes. >> >> With the currently modeling, a DL reasoner will infer >> that the subject is an instance of the union class, and a >> RL reasoner will infer only that the subject is an >> instance of Influence. Since all of the classes in the >> union class are specializations of Influence, the RL >> inference is not incorrect or inconsistent with the DM, >> it is just not as precise as the DL inference. >> >> An RL reasoner >> >> :ex prov:hadRole [ a prov:Role; prov:label "example >> role"; ] . >> >> Will infer the following statement >> >> :ex rdf:type prov:Influence . >> >> Which I do not believe is inconsistent with the DM. >> >> --Stephan >> >>> >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) >> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> >> Assistant Professor >> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | >> Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer >> Science >> - The Network Institute >> VU University Amsterdam > > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/> > Assistant Professor > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | > Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science > - The Network Institute > VU University Amsterdam > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:00:45 UTC