W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-90 (namespace-in-ontology): Namespace used in ontology [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:59:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=QpWTxMVtwZhcgU1U9hC_Wh+QXuqYgqy9PWa-1WFLBhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:13, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> I agree absolutely here. I would like to see one URL for the major concepts
> in the data model. It's weird to have two "official" urls.
>
> I wonder how we can do this?
> Can we not just have /ns/prov ?

I would prefer that as well - but what about other potential
serialisations like "pure XML" which have been mentioned? Or the
implication of some of the PROV-O constraints like domain and range
vs. what is stated in PROV-DM?


If needed we can have ns/prov-o for "additional" concepts which are
not in PROV-DM, like EntityInRole - but then that would mean two
prefixes in the RDF, say prov: and provo:


Perhaps the OPM guys could help by enlightening us on how you did this
with OPM-V (vocabulary) vs. OPM-O (ontology). I believe that OPM-O
reuses the OPM-V concepts where it can.. right?


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:00:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT