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

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

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:00:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRp4MvcaAt3NdAgJ_4a-Wr7pcJs_oF5SpvGD0waxJ8H2Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Looking at it, I think the rules seem a bit complicated. So we only encode
two inferences:

- Inference 15 included in prov-o (?p subpropertyOf prov:wasInfluencedBy)
- Inference 20 included in prov-o (prov:specializationOf subproperty of
prov:alternateOf)

- For Inference 15, it seems to me that this is a result of a core design
decision behind prov-o, which is structuring the ontology around influence.
As Luc says the subproperties mirror the influence hierarchy and conveys
the message that all these things are influence.

- For Inference 20, again this mirrors the class hierarchy.

I think the rationale is as follows. PROV-O has three design drivers: 1)
reflect the concepts defined in PROV-DM, 2) provide a well-structured and
usable ontology 3) remain tractable. Realising those goals may lead to
certain inferences that match what is defined in prov-constraints. These
matches are artefacts of the design and are not derived from
prov-constraints. In particular, the two inferences that are matched are
because of the class hierarchies included to help organize the ontology.

Thoughts?
Paul







On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

>  prov-wg,
>
>  I'd appreciate some feedback on this issue.
>
>  Is the response complete and reasonable enough?
>
>  Thanks,
> Tim
>
>  On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>  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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 16:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC