- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:53:58 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- 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>
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 UTC