- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:18:35 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paul (and Graham), The prov-o team discussed this last week and agreed that this topic is more appropriate in the best practices document. We also outlined the recommended patterns. I put a stub entry at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/1a7d883e143e/bestpractices/BestPractices.html#using-strings that says: * If you want to break RL and any tools built around PROV-O, just use a string. * If you want to follow the datatype/objectproperty distinction, use a resource with rdf:value OR * use content in rdf http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/ 1) Can we move this issue to the best practices product? http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/7 2) Can you put a "string-heavy" example into http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_examples to motivate further development of the best practice? 3) Can we close ISSUE-248 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/248 as a duplicate of this issue? On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Paul, > > This problem is, IMO, an atifact of the arguably arbitrary restrictions of description logic and OWL-DL. If you don't need to be consrainted to OWL-DL then the problem does not arise. Just saying. The problem does arise practically, too. If the range of prov:used is a rdfs:Resource, then tools will handle it as such (and not a string). So tools will choke while reading your account, even if they don't care about reasoning. > > Staying with the object/datatype property distinction, I think either of your suggested approaches can work, but I don't know about semantics of entity here - it seems to me that it should be possoible to formulate the semantics around two properties as well as one, even if the formulation is more complex. > > The second approach avoids the semantic uncertainties at the costof some added complexity in RDF representation. @Graham, could you elaborate this approach, so that we can articulate it in the best practices document? Thanks, Tim > > I'm not sure this helps :( > > #g > -- > > On 18/01/2012 09:40, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-222 (used-objectproperty): Datatype property for used? [Ontology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/222 >> >> Raised by: Paul Groth >> On product: Ontology >> >> Currently, prov-o:used is defined as an objectproperty. This is fine. However, we've be doing some modeling here at the VU where the parameter to a program is a string. Currently, this is not modelled using a prov-o:used edge but it seems like it should be. Is there anyway we can support this? >> >> My first inclination is to define a corresponding datatype property but this make break the semantics of entity... >> >> Another option might be to suggest using a blank node with the string attached using an application specific predicate. >> >> Suggestions? >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 13:19:09 UTC