ISSUE-268: Two Level Ontology?

two-level-ontology

Two Level Ontology?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Ontology

Raised by:

Luc Moreau

Opened on:

2012-02-24

Description:

Dear all,

For the record, I made a suggestion to Khalid yesterday, and it would be good if the prov-o team could consider it.

The details are not fully worked out, and I am sure lots of variants are possible.

The essence is to consider two separate ontologies:
- one minimalistic, a simple vocabulary, in which we allow (more or less) the same expressivity as in PROV-DM
- the other, more extensive, which provides a structure to the vocabulary, introduce super-classes and super-relations, has property chains, has more complex constraints.

For the purpose of this email, I call them prov and provs (for structure)

I believe this would address multiple concerns
- ISSUE-262, ISSUE-263: some of the more permissive assertions would be in provs not in prov. For me this solves the alignment issue.

- ISSUE-265: prov only is required to be OWL-RL (I think it could even be RDFS). provs does not have to be restricted by any specific profile.

Concretely, in the email to Khalid
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0413.html,
I suggested the following


:a1 a prov:Activity
prov:used :e1
prov:usage [a Usage
prov:usedEntity :e1
prov:usedTime t]


Then, in prov-s (s for structure)


prov:usedEntity subPropertyOf provs:entity
prov:Usage subclassOf provs:EntityInvolvement
prov:usedTime subRelationOf provs:hadTemporalExtent
provs:entity domain: provs:EntityInvolvement
range prov:Entity

prov:usage subrelationOf provs:qualified
provs:qualified domain: provs:Element
range: provs:Involvement
prov:Activity subclassOf provs:Element
prov:Entity subclassOf provs:Element



All the patterns are preserved. The concern about Involvement not
being abstract has disappeared. In prov, you can't express instance
of involvement, it's only in provs you can.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-05-08)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-05-07)
3. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-05-02)
4. Re: ACTION-70 (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-04-26)
5. Re: ACTION-70 (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-04-16)
6. ACTION-70 (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-04-16)
7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
9. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
10. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
11. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
12. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-02-27)
13. Re: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-02-24)
14. RE: PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk on 2012-02-24)
15. PROV-ISSUE-268 (two-level-ontology): Two Level Ontology? [Ontology] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-02-24)

Related notes:

Display change log