W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: prov-o encoding of constraints ISSUE-612

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:40:34 +0000
Cc: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BC1B73DA-D04C-488A-AB0B-3AFAA75D2D56@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
Hi,

I've been wondering about which constraints are (in)expressible in OWL, because if all of them were expressible, then OWL would be a simple way to implement the constraints.  

It looks like inferences 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 are not expressible in OWL, because they infer the existence of unknown values that link two statements/properties, which would require object property chains in the super-property position, which are not allowed in OWL.  The rest of the inferences and constraints appear to be expressible (following the idea of the PROV-RDF mapping), although some of them would require property chains in the subproperty position (e.g. inferences 6, 21 and many ordering constraints).

So (if I'm not missing something about OWL) perhaps one rationale for not including the constraints in PROV-O is that not all of them can be defined in OWL.  

--James

On Jan 8, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> My feeling is that prov-o should reflect prov-dm but not prov-constraints.
> 
> However, it might be useful to have some prov-constraints in an owl file somewhere.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Paul, all,
> 
> Kerry's comment is about transitivity of wasDerivedFrom for which there is no consensus on the group.
> It is not in prov-constraints either.
> 
> For the others, e.g. alternate/specialization, prov-o reflects what is in prov-dm (we didn't specify that
> these relations are transitive).
> 
> So, maybe, a solution, is to add some axioms in the owl file?
> 
> Luc
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/08/2013 10:50 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> We have had two public about the encoding of constraints using owl [1], [2]. I have created ISSUE-612 to deal with this.
>> 
>> We discussed this previously as a working group by saying that the owl encoding of constraints was "an implementation" of those constraints. 
>> 
>> However, there seems to be some expectation that this would be the case. Are there any suggestions on how to best address this? We obviously need to say or do something as this issue has arisen twice.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0005.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0000.html
>> 
>> P.S. Related to ISSUE-611
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | 
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:42:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:27 UTC