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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:13:29 -0400
Cc: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <88D3F3FF-0A8A-4DCC-9A88-EA448AE01206@rpi.edu>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Khalid,

On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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.

For simplicity, I think that we should avoid these artificial steps in the hierarchy, and let the domains and ranges speak for themselves.

I hope you'll agree.

Regards,
Tim



> Again we need some intuitive names for the new properties that we introduce.
> 
> Khalid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 23:17:47 GMT

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