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

Re: [provo-html] Re: PROV-ISSUE-119 (vanilla-rdf): How does vanilla RDF work with PROV Ontology [Formal Model]

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:48:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4F5F17E4.2030602@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On 13/03/2012 08:06, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Khalid,
>
> I would prefer to leave this issue open as a check when the next 
> version of the ontology comes out. This is not just about owl-rl but 
> how the whole thing looks in things like sparql.
>
> I'm sure it will be resolved but I want it as a reminder to check.

Ok, thanks.
khalid

>
> cheers
> Paul
>
> Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Given that we decided to adopt OWL-RL, which is a (subset) profile of
>> OWL. Would you be happy if we close this issue?
>>
>> Thanks, khalid
>>
>> On 06/10/2011 10:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-119 (vanilla-rdf): How does vanilla RDF work with PROV 
>>> Ontology [Formal Model]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/119
>>>
>>> Raised by: Paul Groth
>>> On product: Formal Model
>>>
>>> The Provenance Ontology uses OWL for a number of reasons. However, 
>>> we agreed at the last F2F that it was a good idea for adoption that 
>>> that OWL be easy to use in "vanilla RDF" or developer friendly RDF.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if we could either add a section or another document 
>>> that shows how some examples look in such vanilla rdf. Essentially, 
>>> what can I do if I don't know anything about reasoning or even class 
>>> hierarchies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 09:49:09 GMT

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