Re: Fwd: prov-o rec confusion

I'm not sure about doing this encoding work. I think we should say
something though.

As Jun has noted it's not clear that all these are encodable.

regards
Paul


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

>  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
>>
>


-- 
--
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