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

Re: Comments on PROV-O

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:43:13 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5D2C914D-D0AF-45B3-90AB-E8AD68A470A7@rpi.edu>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

I share your desire for simplicity. Rest assured, the explosion of triples has never been our intent.


is an attempt as describing the verbosity of the RHSs.

If anyone can restate more clearly, please feel free to do so.


On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Jun Zhao wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> On 23/02/2012 13:40, Cresswell, Stephen wrote:
>> - Naturalness of RDF.
>> I'm a bit scared to see a single record in the PROV-ASE being mapped to
>>> >10 RDF triples, especially if the record was only stating a simple
>> binary relationship. However, if we're allowed to skip the qualified
>> involvements when we don't need them and just use the direct properties,
>> then we could often be using just one triple.  We are allowed to do
>> that, aren't we?  Also, there is hopefully nothing stopping people from
>> using their own domain-specific subclasses and subproperties.
> I strongly hope so!!
> And it''ll be shame if this is not going to happen!
> And I also strongly hope such a message will be clearly, explicitly reflected in the upcoming prov-o.html spec!
> And agree a lot with your other points about the naming, property chain etc. But I wonder whether defining property chain could conflict the OWL-RL profile the team is working at. I need to check.
> Cheers,
> -- Jun
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 04:43:42 UTC

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