- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:16:22 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. Thanks, Graham. If that's the case, then I'm in favor of having hasProvenanceIn (isReferencedBy :-( ) on the model side. -Tim > > #g > -- > >
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 12:16:51 UTC