Re: Fwd: prov-o rec confusion

The review from Clark & Parsia also requested that "obvious" OWL
expressable constraints to be available, even if they would like easily be
outside OWL-RL.

We talked about doing this as a outside WG activity earlier, but perhaps we
should reconsider as there have been multiple requests now.

I still think it should be done as an additional OWL file, thus PROV-O
alone can express almost all of the same as PROV-N, ignoring constraints,
and then the constraints could be layered on top for a more strict, proper
ontology.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
myGrid team, University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work
On 8 Jan 2013 11:42, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> All:
>
> Below you'll find comments from Kerry Taylor on prov-o.
>
> Again the issue seems to be the encoding of constraints in prov-o.
>
> Paul
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:30 AM
> Subject: prov-o rec confusion
> To: pgroth@gmail.com
>
>
> Hi Paul,
> I am working on an "application" for the recommendation of prov-o, and I
> am confused. I'm also not sure who to address this query/comment to --
> please feel free to forward as you consider appropriate.
>
> All the transitive characteristics of properties (such as wasDerivedFrom)
> seem to have disappeared from an earlier version of prov-o  I was working
> with previously. I can't find any explanation for this, and am doubly
> confused by this following extract from the  on the  candidate rec prov-o
> spec (this is only an example in the spec, but it refers to asymmetric and
> irreflexive characteristics  that have also disappeared).
>
> "prov:wasDerivedFrom
>    a owl:AsymmetricProperty, owl:IrreflexiveProperty, owl:ObjectProperty;
>    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>;
>    prov:inverse     "hadDerivation";
>    rdfs:domain  prov:Entity;
>    rdfs:range   prov:Entity;"
>
> I have the impression that the functionality has been devolved instead to
> the (more expressive)
> "Constraints of the PROV Data Model", perhaps due to the pressure to be
> OWL-RL compliant?
>
> I would really like to see this brought back to PROV-O somehow.
> Maybe a separate prov-o module declaring these things could be  developed
> and  optionally imported if desired. (The missing inverse properties could
> also be handled the same way).
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>