- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:09:05 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 01/06/2012 10:03, Luc Moreau wrote: > > > Dear all, > > Given that ISSUE-384 and ISSUE-385 are blockers, can I strongly invite > you to participate in the debate, so that we converge soon. > > ISSUE-384: role > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384 > > Tim's suggestion: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0455.html > > Graham's suggestion: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0453.html There's a third option here: drop prov:role and just use prov:type, which is what Simon's responses point towards. While I personally have no problem with using prov:role to subtype relations, if it causes confusion for others I'd happily go with just prov:type. I feel the alternative of trying to characterize whether the subtyping is based on the subject or the object of the relation is a step towards over-specification. #g --
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 07:16:19 UTC