- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:16:02 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I will have a look... tomorrow. It is a bit late for me here now! Ivan On May 7, 2012, at 19:54 , Timothy Lebo wrote: > Ivan, > > I'm using a RL checker that Stian made for us to use. > It is described at [1]. > > I'm not sure what the messages intend to convey. > > Regards, > Tim > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#JAR_checker > > On May 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> Tim, >> >> I am not sure I understand thos RL violation errors, actually. I thought property chains are part of RL. Or are these errors independent of the usage of property chains? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ivan >> >> --- >> Ivan Herman >> Tel:+31 641044153 >> http://www.ivan-herman.net >> >> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) >> >> >> >> On 7 May 2012, at 19:21, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >>> I've committed >>> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/d59de1d6a8ba >>> >>> to include chain properties such as: >>> >>>> (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used . >>> >>> Note that Stian's RL checker gives the following "RL violations", which we will need to "justify" in the appendix of the next PROV-O HTML release: >>> >>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in IrrefexiveObjectProperty axiom: [IrreflexiveObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in FunctionalObjectProperty axiom: [FunctionalObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> Use of non-simple property in AsymmetricObjectProperty axiom: [AsymmetricObjectProperty(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy>) in <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-372 (qualified-property-chains): ( prov:qualifedUsage prov:entity ) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/372 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>>> On product: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/D3BF08F5-B11F-4766-919D-FD81DD9D59C7@w3.org >>>> >>>> (I have not found yet the semantics document, I am not sure whether what I write makes sense...) >>>> >>>> Looking at the Prov-o and the qualified terms. Taking the first time in the list, ie, qualifiedUsage. Isn't it correct that, at least conceptually, if I have >>>> >>>> ex:E a prov:Entity; >>>> prov:qualifiedUsage [ >>>> a prov:Usage ; >>>> prov:entity ex:E >>>> ] . >>>> >>>> then, again conceptually, I would expect something like >>>> >>>> ex:E prov:used ex:E . >>>> >>>> to be 'present'. It strikes me that this is exactly what the OWL 2 property chains do (and those are still OWL RL), by saying: >>>> >>>> (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used . >>>> >>>> Isn't it worth adding it to the OWL ontology? Or do I miss something here? >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 18:13:15 UTC