- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:35:34 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|70da58c4cef16712c9b8dcb15fe0b61dp0RGZb08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5106A8D6>
Hi Tim, Just to add to this, if the prov-constraints document didn't exist, would prov-o be any different? I don't think so. The key primary driver was a good ontology design, matching prov-dm, with the tractability constraint on OWL2, and the scruffiness requirement. Luc On 01/28/2013 04:00 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- 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
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 16:36:08 UTC