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

Re: [provo] Re: PROV-ISSUE-269: involved property need to be renamed and its sup-properties need to be structured in a better manner

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:53:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeQH37wvHtBqjUyJ0mw1Kc5jVs258Wn9hwBmZR3ggEAEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Khalid,
after the latest edits to the ontology and the discussions within the
prov-o team,
are you still not comfortable with the name "involved"?
I moved the issue to "pending review", but feel free to open it.

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/2/26 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

>
> I forgot to specify while raising this issue that it is related to the
> ontology.
>
>
> On 26/02/2012 12:57, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-269: involved property need to be renamed and its
>> sup-properties need to be structured in a better manner
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/269<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/269>
>>
>> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
>> On product:
>>
>>
>> I find the term involved not intuitive. I thought of "related", but it is
>> not great either.
>>
>> Additionally, I would suggest giving more structure to the sub-properties
>> of involved, to reflect for example the kinds of domain and range involved,
>> e.g., entity_entity_related, agent_agent_related, entity_activity_related,
>> and activity_activity_related. Again we need some intuitive names for the
>> new properties that we introduce.
>>
>> Khalid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:54:17 GMT

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