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

Another prov-o comment/question

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:10:47 +0200
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D3BF08F5-B11F-4766-919D-FD81DD9D59C7@w3.org>
(I have not found yet the semantics document, I am not sure whether what I write makes sense...)

Looking at the Prov-o and the qualified terms. Taking the first time in the list, ie, qualifiedUsage. Isn't it correct that, at least conceptually, if I have 

ex:E a prov:Entity;
  prov:qualifiedUsage [
    a prov:Usage ;
    prov:entity ex:E
  ] .

then, again conceptually, I would expect something like

ex:E prov:used ex:E .

to be 'present'. It strikes me that this is exactly what the OWL 2 property chains do (and those are still OWL RL), by saying:

(prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used .

Isn't it worth adding it to the OWL ontology? Or do I miss something here?

Ivan

P.S. I use Turtle for these. Please, please, pretty please, would it be possible to generate a decent Turtle version of the OWL Ontology? :-)

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 10:08:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 10:08:01 GMT