- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:17:09 +0200
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJCyKRo7_UwV3ALESTwR9m_wj5h=LD4QEjbqmpb0nXDvcWHTxA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Stephan, I think you summarize the issue well. Maybe we should see what others think about this choice. Another solution would be to add a reminder about how inference works in OWL... but maybe that's redundant :-) regards Paul On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > > Here's the concrete issue: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568 > > It seems the question is, do want want to make the inference you > outlined? > > I agree that all the relations that are allowed to have a role are > influence but dm specifically doesn't list influence as something you can > apply a role to. Thus, this is something you probably don't want to > explicitly state. > > > I think right now the best argument for removing Influence from the > domain is the confusion that it is causing. > > From a modeling perspective I believe it is consistent with the DM, but > confusion about the semantics of property domains is causing a great deal > of stumbling on this. > > We aren't saying that all influence relations can have a role, just that > any relation (DM term) that has a role can be inferred to be an influence > relation (which I believe is consistent with the DM text through > inheritance of the relation 'type'). > > I think the issue here is trying to get the most reasoning possible > while in the RL restriction. Since Influence is the most specific > RL-compatible super-class that covers all the role-able classes, that is > the most detailed domain we can set that an RL reasoner will act upon. > > I guess at this point I am ok with removing Influence from the domain, > but I would argue that the current modeling is consistent with the DM. We > should make the change because the modeling causes more user confusion than > the benefit of the inference. > > --Stephan > > > cheers > Paul > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Garijo < >> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >> >> Thanks Stephan, you are right. However the current problem is that it is >> not consistent with DM. >> >> >> I think it is worthwhile to remember what a property domain in RDFS >> implies. >> >> rdfs:domain is an instance of rdf:Property<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property> that >> is used to state that any resource that has a given property is an instance >> of one or more classes. >> >> With the currently modeling, a DL reasoner will infer that the subject >> is an instance of the union class, and a RL reasoner will infer only that >> the subject is an instance of Influence. Since all of the classes in the >> union class are specializations of Influence, the RL inference is not >> incorrect or inconsistent with the DM, it is just not as precise as the DL >> inference. >> >> An RL reasoner >> >> :ex prov:hadRole [ a prov:Role; prov:label "example role"; ] . >> >> Will infer the following statement >> >> :ex rdf:type prov:Influence . >> >> Which I do not believe is inconsistent with the DM. >> >> --Stephan >> >> >> I have been looking further, and there are other properties where we have >> just >> a union in the domain (e.g., qualifiedInfluence, wasInfluencedBy, >> atLocation). In >> these cases the properties would have an empty domain in DL. I think that >> it's better >> to have it empty rather than allow inconsitencies with the DM. >> >> Thus I still propose to make the change to the documents. Thoughts? >> Best, >> Daniel >> >> 2012/10/19 Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> >> >>> Looking at the domain of hadRole again, I believe what we have right >>> now is the result of the RL++ compromise. The current domain in DL would >>> be the intersection of prov:Influence and the union of prov:Association and >>> prov:InstantaneousEvent, which equates to just the union of >>> prov:Association and prov:InstantaneousEvent. In RL, the union is ignored >>> so the domain would be recognized as prov:Influence. There was no way to >>> get the domain aligned with the DM under RL, so adding Influence was a >>> fallback, otherwise the domain would be unspecified. >>> >>> That is at least my recollection of why it is as it currently is. >>> >>> --Stephan >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Garijo < >>> dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >>> >>> Prov-o team: >>> there seems to be a bug in the ontology, which Luc highlighted in the >>> last telecon: >>> >>> prov:Influence is listed as domain of prov:hadRole, and this is not >>> compatible >>> with PROV-DM. I have checked the latest documents and the only changes >>> to do are: >>> >>> - Remove prov:Inflluence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the >>> ontology. >>> - Remove prov:Influence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the >>> Overview.html document. >>> - Remove prov:hadRole in the "described with properties" box in >>> Overview.html >>> >>> If nobody disagrees with these changes, I will commit them on Monday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | > Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science > - The Network Institute > VU University Amsterdam > > > -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group | Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science - The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 18:17:37 UTC