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

PROV-ISSUE-264 (TLebo): citing an Involvement and not a more specific Involvement. [Ontology]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:00:03 +0000
Message-Id: <E1S0lO7-0001lG-8P@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-264 (TLebo): citing an Involvement and not a more specific Involvement. [Ontology]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/264

Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: Ontology


http://www.w3.org/mid/EMEW3|aa01983af1afff1ecca538db884f0120o1MEfY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F46501B.2@ecs.soton.ac.uk :

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. 


Tim proposed:

Then perhaps DM should add the general notion of "Involvements"?
If encoding DM in OWL led to this natural organization, perhaps it's reflecting something that DM has latently.

Perhaps this could be added as an "Extension Point": Other kinds of Involvements may be provided for domain-specific purposes, and interoperable tools would handle them at the generic understanding of "Involvement".
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 03:00:05 GMT

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