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

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 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	rdfs:domain	prov: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
>