Re: PROV-ISSUE-507: Data Model Tables 4 and 5 [prov-dm]

Luc, all

in the relational model of PROV, the "inverse" of a relation is not even a well-defined concept. Therefore in PROV-DM the issue of 
whether one should specify names for the inverse of a relations does not arise.
Thus I suggest that the following be removed:
"In line with relational design, PROV-DM, as a conceptual model, defines relations without defining their inverses."
along with references to PROV-DM.
I agree with the wording concerning PROV-O.

--Paolo


      ISSUE-507 (Inverse Relations)

  * Original email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0097.html
  * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/507
  * Group Response
      o In line with relational design, PROV-DM, as a conceptual model, defines relations without defining their inverses.
      o PROV-O does not define inverse relations normatively. Instead, prov-o suggests (by means of annotations) names that may be
        used for inverse properties.
      o Hence, PROV-O and PROV-DM are aligned since they do not provide normative definitions of inverses.
      o This issue was debated at length by the Working Group. A key concern regarding normative definitions of inverse is the
        proliferation of terms.
      o A PROV extension may adopt the suggested names for their specific purpose.
  * References:
      o Issue on inverse:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/83
      o Group resolution to add annotation for inverses:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_20

  * Changes to the document: none.

    -- 
    -----------  ~oo~  --------------
    Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
    School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
    http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier