W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-123 (hadParticipant-subprops): prov:used and prov:wasControlledby should be subproperties of prov:hadParticipant

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:37:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeTscu1ToyyQxe7D6ERHPQf+AAW=yGHyipfCXpWbpMY-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Hi Stian,
both wasControlledBy and hadParticipant are gone from the ontology.

Can we close this issue?

Thanks,
Daniel

2011/10/11 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

>
> PROV-ISSUE-123 (hadParticipant-subprops): prov:used and
> prov:wasControlledby should be subproperties of prov:hadParticipant
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/123
>
> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> On product:
>
>
>
> >From this constraint [1] in PROV-DM both prov:used and
> prov:wasControlledby sound like subproperties of prov:hadParticipant:
>
> > Given two identifiers pe and e, respectively identifying a process
> execution expression and an entity expression, the expression
> hadParticipant(pe,e) holds if and only if:
> > used(pe,e) holds, or
> > wasControlledBy(pe,e) holds, or
> > wasComplementOf(e1,e) holds for some entity expression identified by e1,
> and hadParticipant(pe,e1) holds some process execution expression
> identified by pe.
>
> Expressing the transitivity of the last one rule and enforcing no other
> subproperties requires slightly more OWL magic, left as an exercise to the
> reader. It should however be straight-forward to do subproperties for the
> other two.. right?
>
> [1]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-Participation
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT