Re: PROV-ISSUE-617: Why are some prov-constraint inferences in prov-o, but not others? [Ontology]

prov-wg,

I'd appreciate some feedback on this issue.

Is the response complete and reasonable enough?

Thanks,
Tim

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> prov-wg,
> 
> I've prepared a response to the question about why some prov-constraints were encoded in prov-o, and some were not.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617
> 
> Please review and verify that my reasoning is correct.
> Also, if any of you logicians find my use of the term "Rule" inappropriate, please suggest a more satisfactory phrasing.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> PROV-ISSUE-617: Why are some prov-constraint inferences in prov-o, but not others? [Ontology]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/617
>> 
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: Ontology
>> 
>> an extension of ISSUE-611 lingers in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0016.html
>> 
>> Our comment was not regarding encoding of the constraints in OWL
>> (which is not possible to do completely anyway) but about encoding the
>> inferences in OWL. Right now, it looks like some of the inferences
>> from PROV Constraints document is included in PROV-O. Specifically,
>> Inference 15 (influence-inference) [1] and Inference 20
>> (specialization-alternate-inference) [2] are included in PROV-O as
>> subPropertyOf axioms. But other inferences defined in this document
>> are not included in PROV-O which is a little confusing. For example,
>> Inference 12 (revision-is-alternate-inference) [3] suggests another
>> subPropertyOf relation (wasRevisionOf subPropertyOf alternateOf) but
>> this is not in PROV-O. If the WG chooses to encode some of the
>> inferences in PROV-O but not others, we would like to understand the
>> rationale behind this decision.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>