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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-152 (QualifiedInvolvement): will the QualifiedInvolvement approach work for other relations? [Ontology]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:49:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DerqTi-PSBtQ+wf3Conzor510yM9sF3CmUGTEpD+fnhfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Luc,
Right now we have used "Involvement" to qualify the different properties.
The property that links "Elements" with "Involvements" is qualified.
There is an additional issue about being able to express things with the
that we are not able to express in the DM (issue
so I propose to close this issue.


2011/11/18 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-152 (QualifiedInvolvement): will the QualifiedInvolvement
> approach work for other relations? [Ontology]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/152
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Ontology
> The prov-o document has introduced a qualifier for participation, which is
> not in prov-dm.  There is increasing evidence that it is useful to qualify
> all/most relations of prov-dm.
> Is the approach for qualifiedInvolvement be extensible for all relations?
> In particular, for Activity -> Activity relations, such as wasInformedBy.
> QualifiedInvolvement seems to have "The hadQualifiedEntity property links
> the QualifiedInvolvement class with the Entity class.". But wasInformedBy
> does not have entity?
> Thoughts?
> Note, this issue shouldn't block the release of the document as fpwd.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:49:53 GMT

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