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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:12:07 -0400
Message-Id: <E3BC629C-3AC3-4BF9-8EFB-40DEDDE6740A@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

On May 18, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/378
> 
> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> On product: Ontology
> 
> We should clarify the difference between prov:activity and prov:hadActivity (so people don't use prov:hadActivity in qualifiedGenerations).
> 
> We could add a restirction on Generation:
> Generation subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] .
> 

^^ This is within RL and states the restriction that would prevent the confusion between activity and hadActivity.

> And, since the difference between activity and hadActivity is that the former is not optional:
> Generation subclassOf [ on prov:activity min 1 ] .

^^ min 1 goes against RL, which is why we've been avoiding them.

> 
> Also, we should add an rdf:comment explaining this decision.

^^ Do you have a proposed comment to put in?

THanks,
TIm

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 12:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 May 2012 12:12:37 GMT