- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:35:29 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Apr 16, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Just a word to say that it's a problem that is not specific to the ontology. > The problem is similar in other serializations. > Should we have a statement about this in the dm? That makes sense. Would you life to reserve prov:value? PROV-O will not define prov:value in favor of rdf:value. I think the rest of the PROV-O solution (content in RDF vocab) would fall outside of DM's control, as we've done before. -Tim > Luc > > On 04/16/2012 02:18 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > > >
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 15:36:05 UTC