- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:11:23 +0100
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Right, I have closed it already. On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:37, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: > Hi Stian, > both wasControlledBy and hadParticipant are gone from the ontology. > > Can we close this issue? > > Thanks, > Daniel > > > 2011/10/11 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> >> >> >> PROV-ISSUE-123 (hadParticipant-subprops): prov:used and >> prov:wasControlledby should be subproperties of prov:hadParticipant >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/123 >> >> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes >> On product: >> >> >> >> >From this constraint [1] in PROV-DM both prov:used and >> prov:wasControlledby sound like subproperties of prov:hadParticipant: >> >> > Given two identifiers pe and e, respectively identifying a process >> > execution expression and an entity expression, the expression >> > hadParticipant(pe,e) holds if and only if: >> > used(pe,e) holds, or >> > wasControlledBy(pe,e) holds, or >> > wasComplementOf(e1,e) holds for some entity expression identified by e1, >> > and hadParticipant(pe,e1) holds some process execution expression identified >> > by pe. >> >> Expressing the transitivity of the last one rule and enforcing no other >> subproperties requires slightly more OWL magic, left as an exercise to the >> reader. It should however be straight-forward to do subproperties for the >> other two.. right? >> >> [1] >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-Participation >> >> >> >> >> > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 23:12:07 UTC