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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:22:53 +0000
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|1c6d335d72c7f98c494f62cbed465834o1L7NI08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F8B6EE4F-6772-4F49-8B08-2902D365C51D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Tim,  all

I think it is not desirable to express such a form of involvement.
The class Involvement is introduced, as far as I understand, as a way of structuring the ontology.
I don't think it should become a construct of the DM.
So I see this class as "abstract" in OO terminology.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:09, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

>> However super-properties and super-classes make it look like you can
>> use them directly. It now looks like you can say:
>> :entity1 prov:qualified [
>> a prov:EntityInvolvement;
>> prov:entity :entity2;
>> prov:hadTemporalExtent :t .
>> ] .
>> - but this is a half-baked statement where you don't know if we're
>> talking about derivation, attribution or quotation. All  you can
>> conclude is :entity1 prov:involved :entity2.  Perhaps that's a useful
>> statement in a few applications, but for most parts it would be silly.
> Do you see this as a show stopper? I don't think it is.
> -tim
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 07:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:12 UTC