Re: PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]

Thanks Tim.
I will close the issue.
Daniel

2012/10/22 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

> From my perspective this resolves the issue - thanks for pointing us to
> the right place.
>
> Paul
>
> On Oct 22, 2012, at 21:18, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> prov-wg,
>
>  On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-568 (hadRole-domain): domain of prov:hadRole [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Ontology
>
>
> The definition of hadRole in prov-o
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole
>
> lists
> prov:Association or prov:End or prov:Generation or prov:Invalidation or
> prov:Start or prov:Usage
> in its domain, which is what prov-dm states,
> but also
> prov:Influence
> which is not compatible with prov-dm.
>
>
>
>  It depends on what is meant by "compatible".
>
>  The appendix at http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#prov-o-owl-profile
> lists the "OWL-RL violation" of hadRole's domain,
>
>  prov:hadRole <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole> rdfs:domain [
> (prov:Association prov:End prov:Generation prov:Invalidation prov:Start
> prov:Usage) ]
>
>
>   and follows by providing a more general assertion that suits (and
> informs) OWL RL:
>
>    prov:hadRole <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadRole> rdfs:domain
> prov:Influence <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Influence>
> The appendix also clarifies in narrative the meaning of rdfs:domain that
> can be mis-interpreted in other modeling paradigms (and "prov-dm"):
>
>  The more general domain should not be interpreted as saying, e.g., "
> prov:hadActivity can be used with any prov:Influence", but as "Anything
> using prov:hadActivity is (at least) a prov:Influence".
>
>  The appendix also states that  "some property domains or ranges have
> also been defined with the closest common superclass for the classes in the
> [OWL-RL-violating] union"
>
>
>  Tim
>
>