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

Re: reviewer feedback on prov-o ontology

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:21:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Ro2W84KV9P-8O--s_4n04tbo3NuA5JoWcKu7afXkUMJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Furthermore, the ontology allows for instances of involvements to be
> expressed, without
> specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not aligned with
> the data model.

This is a feature, not a bug. Even if Involvement were defined as
equivalent to the union of subclasses, it would still be possible (and
consistent) to assert that something is an Involvement without saying what
the subclass is. We simply wouldn't know.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 14:22:11 UTC

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