- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:58:35 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 04/06/2012 18:31, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > >> >> >> 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. > > I'm wondering if this can be combined with the ContextualizedEntity that sprouted in Luc's latest ternary alternateOf proposal… I don't know, but my intuition is not. I think contextualization per alternateOf, etc., operates in a different place than sub-typing/sub-relations. (Something like sets of entities vs sets of things that make up an entity - but that's a sloppy statement so don't read too much into it.) #g -- >> 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 Tuesday, 5 June 2012 10:03:18 UTC