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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:24:56 -0400
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <74CF0FDC-83A4-4B63-B5E2-2A2C62AB7BCF@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Shouldn't wasEndedBy and wasStartedBy be sub properties of wasAttributedTo?


I think this also brings up a more general question, Stian.
With the ease of "toggling" properties around the hierarchy, it would be nice to have owl:Annotations that justify why one is a sub prop of another, referencing the appropriate dm or dm-constraints anchors.

Any interest in trying that out?

Thanks,
Tim

On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 
> 
> On 04/19/2012 09:49 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> Seems Tim beat me too it.. but now the question are of the unqualified
>> properties.
>>   
> yes, he sent a message last night.
>> They are currently subproperties of prov:wasAssociatedWith (range
>> prov:Agent) - but I no longer read that understanding from DM.
>> 
>>   
> Correct, no agent any more.  It's start/end are part of component 1, whereas agent is in component 3.
> 
>> So I've made them as well be simple subproperties of prov:involved
>> with range prov:Entity. I'm also checking the ProvRDF page.
>> 
>>   
> 
> I think that would be right.
>> Luc, just to check as there are currently a bit of a mess of versions
>> of DM in Mercurial, [1] is right?
>>   
> 
> Yes, that's the latest, ... and right as far as I can tell ;-)
> Luc
> 
>> [1]  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#dfn-wasstartedby
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:33, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>   
>>> You are absolutely right. I'll fix that.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:52, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Hi prov-o team,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know whether this is something that changed since our reviews, or
>>>> whether I missed it in my review,
>>>> but prov:Start and prov:End should be EntityInvolvement and not
>>>> AgentInvolvement.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Luc
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/02/2012 09:12 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> Luc, Paul, Simon, Sam, and MacTed,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Over the past couple telecons, you have accepted to review and provide
>>>>> feedback for the PROV-O documents.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please see ISSUE-336 for the information about reviewing PROV-O HTML and
>>>>> OWL.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/336
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you could reply to this message when providing feedback, we would
>>>>> greatly appreciate it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> <Tim Lebo>
>>>>>       prov:actedOnBehalfOf<PROV-O team>;
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>>         
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 14:26:02 GMT

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