- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:24:30 +0200
- To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon, I agree that we need a specific way of describing the extension mechanism. However, one thing to do would be to identify what set of shortcuts we need and maybe that can inform us what kind of generic extension approach we need to define in the conceptual model. Thanks, Paul Simon Miles wrote: > Hi Paul, all, > > As a general point, these rely on the concept "is a sub-relation of". > It's clear what this means in the formal model, because RDFS contains > this concept, but it is not yet clear what it means in, or that it is > any part of, the language/conceptual model. This is part of the issue > of how the language can be extended to include domain-specific > information, which might (or might not) allow new "sub-relations" [1]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/65 > > Thanks, > Simon > > On 9 August 2011 10:06, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I've added some shortcuts/extensions to the Provenance Model document. >> >> see >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#shortcuts-and-extensions >> >> I attempted to define the following in terms of the existing constructs >> in the model: >> >> Quotation >> Attribution >> Summary >> Original Source >> >> What do you think? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 09:27:29 UTC