Absolutely. Thanks! -Tim On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Given the new definition of derivation adopted today, we no longer have a prov:steps attribute. > So I propose to close this issue, if it's OK with you. > > Luc > > On 02/12/11 17:28, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-179 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/179 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> Imposing a "default" value for prov:steps will cause issues in PROV-O, which embraces the open world. >> >> > From [1]: >> >> "It is optional to include the attribute prov:steps in an imprecise-n derivation record. It defaults to prov:steps="n"." >> >> >> An OWL axiom such as "imprecise-n derivation records must have values of prov:step that are integers greater than 1" can be done, and if an instance of Derivation is typed to "imprecise-n derivation record", then one knows that it has more than one step -- even when no prov:step has been asserted. >> >> >> If this OWL approach is taken, would we be violating the DM's "It defaults to prov:steps="n"."? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation >> >> >> >> > >Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 04:19:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT