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

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:00:56 -0500
Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <D84F3930-C19E-4308-BB1D-C37CC7AA2703@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT