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

Re: prov-o encoding of constraints ISSUE-612

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:34:49 +0000
Message-ID: <50EC1269.40004@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hello Paul and Luc,

We had a feasibility study September last year, taking a look at how 
many of the constraints and inferences rules in the constraint document 
can be encoded in OWL.

The result was that most of the constrains cannot be encoded in OWL, 
because a lot of them are related to time; although quite a few of the 
inferences can be.

We did the study as part of the Wf4Ever project effort because the WG 
believed that the prov-o team then should have focused on the prov-o 
ontology.

Are you saying that we should pick this up in the WG now? (We didn't 
pursue further down this route in Wf4Ever because OWL doesn't seem to be 
able to cover more than half of the constrains in the doc.)

Happy to talk more.

-- Jun

On 1/8/13 11:03 AM, Paul Groth 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
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Jun Zhao, PhD
Department of Zoology
University of Oxford
Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road
Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 12:35:14 UTC

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