W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-O ready for internal WG review - due 9 April.

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 14:04:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmGk1Msx3k4CbsNARO+OM8ywW-2pe0eqQS=_k2Pi_0VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 09:14, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> ex:correct prov:qualifiedAssociation [
>               a Association ;
>               prov:agent   ex:edith ;
>               prov:hadPlan ex:corrections
>           ] .
>
> it is strange to see prov:hasPlan, why not simply prov:plan (and similarly
> for other hadXXX properties).

Because we had a WG resolution ages ago that we would use verbs in
past tense for edges.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-01#resolution_2


We've ignored this rule for prov:agent/entity/activity as they are
really a kind of rdf:object for the reified triple.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#4._Naming_style_for_prov:entity_prov:activity_prov:agent_is_RESERVED



One of the reason for this is that earlier we had some involvements
(like prov:Derivation) that had both entities and activities, and it
was unclear which of those properties was the 'real' involvement that
we were qualifying.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 13:05:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT