- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:03:20 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 15:38, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > I've looked over part of your mapping, and I wrote down a new design objective "rule". > Do you agree with it? > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#4._Naming_style_for_prov:entity_prov:activity_prov:agent_is_RESERVED I'm OK with the principle, but not sure about the consequences, in particular if we use 'had' form. That would mean the involvements will 'have' things they did not really have, but were just properties of the involvement? I believe these are the changes: :quotation a prov:Quotation ; prov:hadQuoter :quoter ; prov:hadQuoted :quoted . I'm OK with that, as quoter/quoted are roles in a Quotation acti... involvement. :derivation a prov:Derivation ; prov:hadUsage :use1 ; prov:hadGeneration :gen1 . Not so sure about this.. The derivation *had* some usage? *Had* a generation? Perhaps a verb that also signifies involvement of some kind.. the generation was the *outcome* of the derivation, and the usage was the premiss. What about: :derivation a prov:Derivation ; prov:basedOnUsage :use1 ; prov:contributedToGeneration :gen1 . # There might be other derivations for same generation! And should we then not also rename these back to was-form? :e2 prov:alternateOf :e1 . :e3 prov:specializationOf :e1 . --> :e2 prov:wasAlternateOf :e1 . :e3 prov:wasSpecializationOf :e1 . -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 10:04:13 UTC