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: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:10:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA01DCE.8010901@vu.nl>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think it's as you suggest. We may need extra namespace for anything 
that's not in the datamodel.

cheers
Paul


Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 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?
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:13:54 GMT

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