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

Re: Tim's approach on Involvement

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:53:58 -0500
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5737C4C4-0E92-4189-96FE-8949A9341AF7@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:22 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,  all
> 
> I think it is not desirable to express such a form of involvement.
> The class Involvement is introduced, as far as I understand, as a way of structuring the ontology.
> I don't think it should become a construct of the DM.

That's a shame, because it could be a great opportunity to permit extensibility.

-Tim



> So I see this class as "abstract" in OO terminology.
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:09, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>>> However super-properties and super-classes make it look like you can
>>> use them directly. It now looks like you can say:
>>> 
>>> :entity1 prov:qualified [
>>> a prov:EntityInvolvement;
>>> prov:entity :entity2;
>>> prov:hadTemporalExtent :t .
>>> ] .
>>> 
>>> - but this is a half-baked statement where you don't know if we're
>>> talking about derivation, attribution or quotation. All  you can
>>> conclude is :entity1 prov:involved :entity2.  Perhaps that's a useful
>>> statement in a few applications, but for most parts it would be silly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Do you see this as a show stopper? I don't think it is.
>> 
>> -tim
>> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 05:04:37 GMT

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