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

Re: Another prov-o comment/question

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:30:24 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9619E473-96C6-4043-90BA-DE860450742C@rpi.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan,

Thank you for your suggestion.

I have added it as ISSUE-372
and we will be discussing it today at our telecon.

Regards,
Tim


On May 7, 2012, at 6:10 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> (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 13:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 13:30:59 GMT