Re: PROV-ISSUE-617: Why are some prov-constraint inferences in prov-o, but not others? [Ontology]

prov-wg,

I've prepared a response to the question about why some prov-constraints were encoded in prov-o, and some were not.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617

Please review and verify that my reasoning is correct.
Also, if any of you logicians find my use of the term "Rule" inappropriate, please suggest a more satisfactory phrasing.

Regards,
Tim



On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-617: Why are some prov-constraint inferences in prov-o, but not others? [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/617
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
> 
> an extension of ISSUE-611 lingers in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0016.html
> 
> Our comment was not regarding encoding of the constraints in OWL
> (which is not possible to do completely anyway) but about encoding the
> inferences in OWL. Right now, it looks like some of the inferences
> from PROV Constraints document is included in PROV-O. Specifically,
> Inference 15 (influence-inference) [1] and Inference 20
> (specialization-alternate-inference) [2] are included in PROV-O as
> subPropertyOf axioms. But other inferences defined in this document
> are not included in PROV-O which is a little confusing. For example,
> Inference 12 (revision-is-alternate-inference) [3] suggests another
> subPropertyOf relation (wasRevisionOf subPropertyOf alternateOf) but
> this is not in PROV-O. If the WG chooses to encode some of the
> inferences in PROV-O but not others, we would like to understand the
> rationale behind this decision.
> 
> 
> 
>