- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:46:25 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 04/06/2012 03:14, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> I can see the point about trying to reuse the relation between the PAQ >> and the dm. > > Unfortunately, I'm behind on the PAQ. But perhaps it's become required reading for the hasProvenanceIn decision… I'd say not. I think any hasProvrenanceIn should stand independently of PROV-AQ. Then, of the semantics (or lack of) are OK, PROV-AQ could use it, otherwise a different term. #g --
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 07:10:30 UTC