PIL OWL Ontology Meeting 2012-04-30

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Information

prov-wg - Modeling Task Force - OWL group telecon


  • Tim
  • Khalid
  • Satya
  • Stephan
  • Stian
  • Jun (regrets)
  • Paul (regrets)
  • Daniel (regrets)


For the issues that you are assigned:

  • describe the original concern
  • describe any perspectives already expressed
  • recommend next step, or propose a solution





(out til Thursday)



  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/268 two level ontology
    • discussion of RL vs RL++ levels?
    • currently modeling both domains in same ontology, RL-strict systems will ignore non-RL axioms
    • Stephan: confusion on which to use OPMO OPMV
    • Tim: concerned about maintaining distiction.
    • Stephan: would bring even more confusion based on OWL profile.
    • Stephan: hard to maintain, difficult to understand.
    • Stian: ++ imports RL version and adds a few things?
    • Stephan: Luc proposed this, but RL wouldn't reflect DM completely.
    • Satya: practically, just RL with caveats. Two ontologies is too much for WG.
    • Khalid: too much trouble with one to begin with. Just do what we're doing now. Try to keep RL compliant.
    • Stephan: what is response to Luc?
    • Tim: Group feels that supporting two ontologies (even if one imports and extends another) would be difficult and create confusion among users regarding the OWL deliverables.
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/363 prov:value collision
    • Suggestions
      • change name of current prov:value
        • range is Entity   [ a prov:KeyValuePair;  prov:key "first-base"; prov:value :e2;]; .
        • suggestions:
          • keyValuePairValue?
          • keyValue ? 
          • entry ?
      • add DatatypeProperty prov:value
  • http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/338 prov:agent vs hadPlan naming
    • Stephan described convention at http://www.w3.org/mid/1FFCB011-1356-4882-A959-29D4B9AD5A8D%2540rpi.edu
    • Issue was about clarifying current conventions, response attempts to do that
    • the object of the unqualified relation.
    • Next steps?
      • Might ask Luc if ISSUE-338 as-is is ok to close, are conventions now clear to Luc
    • Tim: what to add to ontology, html? to avoid confusion in the future
    • TODO: Tim to look over OWL nad HTML to fit in better description.




seed issues

  • Raised by Jun: Can we talk  about when or whether we will have snapshots for our ontology, like  ProvenanceOntology-20120430.owl? Or achieve similar functionality via  other mechanisms? I think it's important to have an ontology that is  synchronized with each prov-o spec public release or even work draft.
    • Stian: w3.org/  - why do we need two timestamps?
    • Satya: agree with Stian. putting it into the filename explicity is redundant, we should just ahv ethe owl file.
    • Stian: put it into the OWL file?
    • Tim: use mercurial tags?
    • Satya: link to the hash in PROV-O HTML?
    • Tim: used relative w3.org/prov0wd20120503/prov.owl  <--- WD2
    • Stian: What does the OWL import line look like to a versioned PROV-O (Tim: w3.org/prov/WD_20120503/prov.owl?)
    • Stian: you can import it with and without the time spec. (in addition to the namespace itself)
    • TODO: Tim to look at tags
    • TODO: Jun to outline concerns to group.

How would you encode http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#acknowledgements in prov-o?

  • Stanford's Protege for editing the ontology.
  • Dave Beckett's rapper for the many serialization checks of so many examples.
  • Alvaro Graves' LODSpeaKr for constructing portions of this page with SPARQL queries of PROV-O.
  • Cosmin Basca's SuRF and Ivan Herman's rdflib for easing the construction of this page's cross reference section.
  • Silvio Peroni's LODE for the CSS styling of this page's cross reference section.
  • Robin Berjon's respec for handling the W3C styling.