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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:10:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnzt6ioE0b+Gm7hV=3JfWb89LYxDJ7r=qk=spuryNX_VA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
There is a bug if you use Protege 4.0 - 4.1 should work.

I'm investigating now what is wrong in 4.0.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:08, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> All, I can no longer load the ontology in Protege. Can you check it's all
> OK?
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 22/02/2012 09:01, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:46, Khalid Belhajjame
>> <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We decided to model only wasStartedBy that involves an agent. So that I
>>> think, we can safely define Start as a sub-class of Association.
>>>
>>
>> So something like in
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Starting_again ?
>>
>> I'm not sure if I like this - here the involvement is both a
>> prov:Start and prov:Inform at the same time - and a phantom agent ?ag1
>> is introduced.
>>
>> .. or we simply say that Starting_again is not mapped to RDF?
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 09:11:13 GMT

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