PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2011-08-02

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 15:08, 8 August 2011 by Tlebo (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Information

prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon


  • Tim
  • Satya
  • Khalid
  • Daniel
  • James





Group organization

Tim: Jim McCusker is joining the group, but not in today's telecon

Wiki page


Reuse - time and location

Daniel: looking at OWL doc and html. Propose reusing wgs and owl time for Time and Location. James: use directly or recommend?

Time ontology has interval and instant.

TODO: Tim to dig up his owl time diagram.

TODO: refering from OWL class to the Conceptual Model. (e.g., why is "Time" in this ontology?)

Time: process execution and BOB

  • Beginning of a process, end of a process
  • use and generation
  • derivation has temporal

Khalid: this class is abstract class and people instantiate or extend it with their vocab?

Daniel: list recommendations. We don't constrain them to use one.

Tim: keep it general, but elaborate with OWL time and WGS (which people can grab and use). (RESOLVED)

Satya: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#calclock

Daniel: we have PIL types, but will offer subclasses that people will use.

James: pil:Time but not saying anything about it, then saying "if you want, equiv it to dateTimeDescription".

James: two levels, 1) "there are times, there are locations." 2) concrete "wgs and owl time"

Satya: Reference and domain.

topic: elaborated and unelaborated ontologies vs. a single elaborated ontology.

  • theoretical vs. practical application uses

Daniel: group agreed that we are NOT defining time or location.

Missing relationship between generation/use/derivation and Time/Location

 Missing relationship between generation/use/derivation and Time/Location. (Daniel G) 

pe_1 generated b_1 . pe_1 occuring_at_location loc_1 .

Daniel: do not rely on rules.

Daniel: modeling n-ary as classes makes it difficult to use inference.

Help avoid using owl:Classes:

  • generated_at_time
  • generated_at_location

Should these be pushed back to the conceptual model?


Roles are not represented yet

TODO: Daniel (to do): Role examples from Journalism scenario

Arities (i.e., cardinalities)

how many bobs are derived from another bob. how many bobs does a process 

TODO: Khalid to try to find some cardinaltity constraints

HTML document

How to get the HTML file? From the w3c repository.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Mercurial_repository http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/MercurialRepository

RESOLVED: The wiki is the "starting point" and will be transitioned to the HTML document. RESOLVED: Things that don't make it to the HTML will be archived in the wiki page.

process execution

"continuous" interval of time.


Satya concerned about "it doesn't occupy the entire interval".

(did we address this?)



TODO: "role" - role of the generated BOB?

TODO: Tim to describe roles of input and params.


TODO: Tim to revisit his graphml output


TODO: we want diagrams in section 2 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#owl2-encoding-of-the-provenance-model



Satya: start by describing it in HTML, then move to OWL when we have clarity on how it should be modeled.

TODO: James add something to section 3 (entailments)

James: They might not belong in the ontology but in the semantics document. Luc mentioned we should know what we are expecting or not expecting with entailments.

Satya: RDFS/OWL entailments. Other stuff needs to be described in the entailments section (as rules?).

Q: why is "is" used in the relationships, and not "was"? -Tim


  • OWL-Time,
  • RDF
  • OWL
  • BFO, 

Next meeting

Monday. We'll figure out time over email. 9am California  12 noon  5pm UK