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: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:35:34 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|70da58c4cef16712c9b8dcb15fe0b61dp0RGZb08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5106A8D6.3080304@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
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

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