Re: prov-o encoding of constraints ISSUE-612

Hi Paul, all,

Kerry's comment is about transitivity of wasDerivedFrom for which there 
is no consensus on the group.
It is not in prov-constraints either.

For the others, e.g. alternate/specialization, prov-o reflects what is 
in prov-dm (we didn't specify that
these relations are transitive).

So, maybe, a solution, is to add some axioms in the owl file?

Luc


On 01/08/2013 10:50 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have had two public about the encoding of constraints using owl 
> [1], [2]. I have created ISSUE-612 to deal with this.
>
> We discussed this previously as a working group by saying that the owl 
> encoding of constraints was "an implementation" of those constraints.
>
> However, there seems to be some expectation that this would be the 
> case. Are there any suggestions on how to best address this? We 
> obviously need to say or do something as this issue has arisen twice.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0005.html
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0000.html
>
> P.S. Related to ISSUE-611
>
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam

-- 
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