PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-06-04
- previous meeting
- date: 2012-06-04
- time: 12pm ET, 5pm GMT
- via Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 695 ("OWL")
- wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-06-04
- titan page: http://titanpad.com/7u5A6M8BQv
For the issues that you are assigned:
- describe the original concern
- describe any perspectives already expressed
- recommend next step, or propose a solution
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/381 Jun's feedback on 3.2 expanded terms
- Daniel: haven't gotten to it. Will do by Thursday. Tomorrow morning.
- ... removed the Note, added missing Location etc. All there now.
- TODO: Tim to recheck the examples for coverage.
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 eg for each term
- Nothing to do here. was done over email.
- For Involvement example - use non PROV properties (not use specific sub-type of involvement)
- TODO: Satya to put the example below in - Done
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> . @prefix my: <http://example.com/ontology#> . @prefix : <http://example.com/> . # Although a domain extension (e.g. ':wasConductedBy') is not defined by PROV-O, # the relation between a surgery and an agent can be qualified # by reusing prov:Involvement and one of its three subclasses # (depending on the type of the instance involved): # AgentInvolvement, EntityInvolvement, and ActivityInvolement. my:wasConductedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:wasAssociatedWith . :conductingSurgery_1 a prov:Activity; my:wasConductedBy :bob; # This unqualified involvement is unknown in PROV, this would be a subproperty of wasAssocitedWith prov:qualifiedAssociation [ # Even though PROV systems do not understand :wasConductedBy, # they can recognize that the unknonw relation is being qualified wtih hadRole. a prov:Association, prov:AgentInvolvement, # Inferred prov:Involvement; # Inferred prov:agent :bob; # The object of :wasConductedBy prov:hadRole :Surgeon; ]; . :bob a prov:Agent .
- Inferences captured by formal semantics by James?
- wasQuotedFrom still not subproperty of wasAttributedTo
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/372 qualified prop chains
- (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used .
- Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>
- Why the new "RL++ errors"?
- Jun/Stian/Satya will take a look and report back what that error message means so that we can include them in the HMTL page (send emails to 372 chain)
- Satya: playing with protege OWL API. Trying to recreate the error.
- ... Stian sent a summary.
- ... shouldn't be a problem
- Stian: thinks a bug in the OWL API.
- Jun: tried to reproduce the error, but it never worked (never got anything back).
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/374 prov:membership [ a prov:Membership ]
- TIm: why do we have the indirection?
- TODO: Stian to think it through and reply on the list.
- Khalid: b/c it was incomplete.
- Stian: "complete membership" we have CompleteMembership.
- TIm: wasn't Membeship Involvement?
:c1 a prov:Dictionary; prov:member2 (collided with "prov:object" prov:member) :pair1; # [ # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. # owl:sameAs <that bnode below>; # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. # a prov:KeyValuePair; # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. ## prov:pariKey "k1"^^xsd:string; # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. # prov:pairValue :e1 # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. # ]; # This is all inferred fromt he qualification. prov:<qualified>Membership [ # Tim says: DELETE ME PLEASE a prov:Membership; prov:Involvement; # Tim says: DELETE ME PLEASE (this is the qualified membership over the entire collection) prov:member :pair1; # [ # subproperty of prov:involvee # a prov:KeyValuePair; # prov:pairKey "k1"^^xsd:string; # prov:pairValue :e1; #] , [ a prov:KeyValuePair; prov:pairKey "k2"^^xsd:string; prov:pairValue :e2; ]; ]; .
Why could it not be simply the following? (We later figured out that they ARE the same, it's just that they are using qualified pattern directly, not asserting the unqualified, and using multiple objects of the prov:involvee triple.
:c1 a prov:Dictionary; prov:member :pair1, :pair2; prov:qualifiedMembership [ # THis qualifies each individual elemtn's membership. a prov:Membership; prov:keyvaluepair :pair1; :foo :bar; ]; prov:qualifiedMembership [ # THis qualifies each individual elemtn's membership. a prov:Membership; prov:keyvaluepair :pair2; :foo :bar; ]; . :pair1 a prov:KeyValuePair; prov:key "k1"^^xsd:string; prov:value :e1 . :pair2 a prov:KeyValuePair; prov:key "k2"^^xsd:string; prov:value :e2 ]; .
Meeting stopped here
Meeting stopped here Meeting stopped here Meeting stopped here Meeting stopped here Meeting stopped here
- Additional cross references in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html
- Stian: Looks really nice with the new additions
- Paul suggests "class can be used with relationship" http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJCyKRqsy4oTor8D8xkpSDUMaOPAsXER+Cxsh1crU-vHCK3EmQ@mail.gmail.com
- Stian: Yes, less confusing than "parent in domain of"
- Tim: "in domain of" atTime (from EntityInvolvement)
- Stian: Good tradeoff between clarity and truthfulness :)
- Tim: "Properties that can be used with this class"
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336 pre-WD2 feedback
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/276 coverage
- automation still down.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/377 RL++ justifications appendix
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/382 Jun's feedback part deux.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/83 prov:inverse local names
- done: narrative for the appendix: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#names-of-inverse-properties
- TODO: respond to Stian's feedback http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPRnXt=DYfhtPJsYrq0vKsW2McZnVo6qqXR5pTP7oANA6BMLZA@mail.gmail.com
- TODO: Tim to review the list.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 [good] turtle examples in cross ref
- is length a problem? The widest:
- 129 class_Quotation.ttl
- 129 property_hadQuoted.ttl
- 129 property_hadQuoter.ttl
- 129 property_qualifiedQuotation.ttl
- is length a problem? The widest:
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267 annotate subproperties of tracedTo to justify subpropertyness
- sometimes used comments, sometimes used @ annotate axiom.
- done: Stephan to review http://www.w3.org/mid/718A485F-49EF-49C4-9E9B-5F3DE6531861@rpi.edu>
- TODO: Tim to respond, and write inverse section narrative.
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/388 (tools and demos)
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/389 extensions to prov-o
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/390 PROV-O for PAQ
- Paul: like these to be in the ontology file not the document.
- My main concern is machine readability. If I dereference prov:hasAnchor I'd like to get to the appropriate owl definition.
- https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/392 hasProvenanceIn / isReferencedBy
- prov:qualifiedForm - comment does not reflect "pointing at both" - Stephan.
- prov:qualifiedFrom should change 'prov:Involved subclass' -> 'prov:Involvement subclass'
- This is an issue with prov:wasTracedTo and all its sub-properties.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/393 examples have older PairKey predicates.
- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267 - justify all subproperty assertions
- 2nd pass?
- For http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 eg for each term :
- ... suggest to highlight the terms that are being illustrated.
- TODO: Khalid to mock up what a highlight would look like.
- TODO: add e.g. to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-24-prov-o-html-examples/rdf/create/rdf/property_pairKey.ttl and pairValue. (use baseball roster example?)
- Chase issue 374 (about prov:Membership, prov:membership)
How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o?