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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:40:52 -0500
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <35F241E2-AB75-4DDF-A1C3-0EED9ABDDC18@rpi.edu>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>

On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:

> Hi Luc,
> Comments are interleaved:
>> 
>>> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with hadActivity going in the reverse direction.
>>> 
>>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities.
>> 
>> If proposed, I say -1
>> 
> 
> I don't think the notion of 'principal' should be absolute. It depends on what you are doing with the provenance,
> and this is left to users. 
> 
> 
> Again, the current construct in owl file is "Usage (class) ->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> Activity (class).

It's the other way around:

Activity (class). ->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> "Usage (class)"


> 
> Can you please clarify if you are suggesting that we introduce a new property called hadActivity that is just an inverse of hasQualifiedUsage (and does not capture any additional information)?
>  


-Tim
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 03:42:12 GMT

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