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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:58:44 -0400
Message-Id: <7049A613-B598-4857-A374-1C33757535A5@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Simon,

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/319
> 
> Raised by: Simon Miles
> On product: Ontology
> 
> What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain
> (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything,

yes, any rdfs:Resource can be described using prov:hasAnnotation.

prov:Entity and prov:Activity are two subtypes of rdfs:Resource that can be described using prov:hasAnnotation

The largest reason for not having the domain defined is that we can't have an owl:unionOf in OWL-RL.


> then
> what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an
> arbitrary non-prov RDF statement?

Do you have an example of non-prov RDF statement that brings you concern?



> What is its connection to
> provenance?

I think this is a concern on DM, not the ontology.
I'd suggest:

1) clearing up your rdfs:domain concerns and reassigning this ISSUE to DM
or
2) start a new ISSUE on DM about it's connection to provenance.

Regards,
Tim
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 15:59:16 GMT

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