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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:01:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4F43CDDE.7070402@vu.nl>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, Khalid:

As a reminder, we said at the F2F that we shouldn't spend too much time 
on constructs that we are know are under flux. I think RecordContainer 
falls in to that category.

By the way: really nice work. It "reads" a lot more consistently now. 
 From my point of view, I like the consistency and parralism in the 
class hierarchy and property hierarchy. e.g. prov:involvment property 
and prov:Involvment class. I also like the fact that there's only one 
qualified property.

cheers,
Paul


Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
>> Hi Khalid!
>>
>> 2012/2/21 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>>
>>
>>
>>     Bundle: This construct does not exist in prov-dm W3. We need to
>>     replace it by RecordContainer, or Container.
>>
>> I think we should leave Bundle. Why add RecordContainer if we are 
>> going to replace it in the next version?
>
> +1 We know how it's going to change, so we can relax the "we're doing 
> WD3 now" constraint.
>
> -Tim
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 17:04:21 GMT

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