Re: PROV-ISSUE-267 (TLebo): annotate all subproperty axioms to justify them [Ontology]

Hi Khalid, Tim, Paulo

I am reviewing the property annotations on sub-properties of prov:tracedTo

Comments:

1) I think we should use rdfs:isDefinedBy to reference the latest PROV-DM document with an anchor to the section about the specific term.

2) Why define prov:category and prov:component annotations when a rdfs:isDefinedBy annotation would suffice and be easier for users to follow?

3) Why define the prov:inverse annotation?  Either we define inverse properties or we do not, but suggestions via annotations are not very useful.  Tools and queries cannot be constructed around suggestions via annotations.  I understand the issue of constructing queries using inverse properties when an endpoint may or may not support reasoning of inverse properties, but why define an annotation that approximates (half-heartedly) an existing OWL axiom?

4) There appears to be dual usage of the prov:qualifiedForm annotation.  It has been used to reference both the Involvement class and the property that references the Involvement class.  For example prov:wasAttributed to has a prov:qualifiedForm annotation referencing both prov:Attribution and prov:qualifiedAttribution.  Based on the description associated with prov:qualifiedForm, I think ti should only reference prov:Attribution.

Also, the comment on prov:qualifiedFrom should change 'prov:Involved subclass' -> 'prov:Involvement subclass'

'This annotation property links a prov:involved subproperty with a prov:Involved subclass.'

should be

'This annotation property links a prov:involved subproperty with a prov:Involvement subclass.'

This is an issue with prov:wasTracedTo and all its sub-properties.

--Stephan

On May 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> 
> Hi Tim and Paolo,
> 
> I updated the ontology to include annotations that justify the hierarchy of sub-properties. In particular, was wasAttributedTo, wasDerivedFrom, derivedByInsertionFrom, derivedbyRemovalFrom, hadOriginalSource, wasQuotedFrom, and wasRevisionOf. Regarding the properties involved and involvee, the comments used for their annotation justify the existence of their su-properties, so I don't think we need to add justification for each of their direct sub-properties.
> 
> Please let me know if you are happy with the update and accept to close this issue.
> 
> PS: Tim, I updated the ProvenanceOntology.owl, I notice that there is also another file called ProvenanceOntologyFull.owl. I didn't update this one.
> 
> Thanks, khalid
> 
> 
> 
> On 24/02/2012 06:05, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-267 (TLebo): annotate all subproperty axioms to justify them [Ontology]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/267
>> 
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: Ontology
>> 
>> all subproperty axioms need to be annotated to justify why they are subproperties.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 07:41:16 UTC