PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-06-04

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 17:39, 4 June 2012 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

Attendees

  • Tim
  • Daniel
  • Satya 

regrets

  • Stian
  • Paul
  • Jun

regrets

  • Khalid
  • Stephan

Agenda

For the issues that you are assigned:

  • describe the original concern
  • describe any perspectives already expressed
  • recommend next step, or propose a solution

ISSUES

Daniel

  • 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.

Satya

  • 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 .

Stian

  • 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

Tim







  • 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.



  • 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.

Stephan

Khalid

Jun

  • Chase issue 374 (about prov:Membership, prov:membership)

AOB

How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o?