- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:00:56 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>>
>> note(n2,[ex:style="dotted"])
>> hasAnnotation(u1,n2)
>>
>> and
>> hasAnnotation(u1,n2,[ex:style="dotted")
>>
>
> To me they are *not* equivalent.
>
>> There are no examples in the DM document showing hasAnnotation with a non-empty list of attributes.
>>
>
> I think we could subtype the relation hasAnnotation: hasTrustAnnotation, hasReputationAnnotation, ...
>
It seems to me that we could achieve this by subtyping Note and avoiding the need to qualify hadAnnotation.
:myNote prov:hadAnnotation :myMetaNote .
:myMetaNote a prov:Note, my:TrustNote;
rdfs:comment "THAT NOTE OVER THERE IS THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY NOTE EVER. :: signed :: Tim." .
etc.
-Tim
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 01:01:34 UTC