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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:10:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dd652kP=V0HwBD8SRV1mU+_QrqTn_h23Vxyz4_X9frBgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon,
this issue is now pending review.
Are you ok with Tim's answers and proposals? Can we close it?
(it seems more related to DM than PROV-O).

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/3/15 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Simon,
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> > PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/319
> >
> > Raised by: Simon Miles
> > On product: Ontology
> >
> > What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain
> > (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything,
>
> yes, any rdfs:Resource can be described using prov:hasAnnotation.
>
> prov:Entity and prov:Activity are two subtypes of rdfs:Resource that can
> be described using prov:hasAnnotation
>
> The largest reason for not having the domain defined is that we can't have
> an owl:unionOf in OWL-RL.
>
>
> > then
> > what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an
> > arbitrary non-prov RDF statement?
>
> Do you have an example of non-prov RDF statement that brings you concern?
>
>
>
> > What is its connection to
> > provenance?
>
> I think this is a concern on DM, not the ontology.
> I'd suggest:
>
> 1) clearing up your rdfs:domain concerns and reassigning this ISSUE to DM
> or
> 2) start a new ISSUE on DM about it's connection to provenance.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 19:11:18 GMT

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