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>
Jun,

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

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Partial_mappings

is an attempt as describing the verbosity of the RHSs.

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

-Tim


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 GMT

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