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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-556 (time-qualification): public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRr-6ApoNRvgvQGP1UxGV3tB3Ys7sXYeeYqZ9Swh4tG4OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

I think a bullet point to add here was that the group decided that there
are different implementations of the constraints in semantic technologies
(OWL, sparql rules) - and these would have  cope with qualification.

cheers
Paul

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  I thought we should discuss this issue since it seems more about the
> alignment of PROV-O and PROV-DM (and how the constraints fit into this)
> than about the constraints document.
>
>  Please let me know if you agree/disagree with the response below.  I
> propose to respond by explaining that it is out of scope of the current
> documents but may need to be addressed later (e.g. if we wanted to fully
> OWL-ify the constraints.)
>
>  Marked pending review for now.
>
>  --James
>  ISSUE-556 (time-qualification)
>
>    - Original email:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html
>    - Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/556
>    - Summary: *Are there missing constraints to relate qualified and
>    unqualified start/end times?*
>    - Group response:
>       - PROV-CONSTRAINTS defines constraints in terms of the abstract
>       syntax of PROV-DM.
>       - The group has decided not to explicitly specify the mapping from
>       PROV-O representations to PROV-DM and back (although there is a partial,
>       but not up-to-date, alignment at
>       http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF), but this might be done
>       in the future or as a Note.
>       - The group has also decided not to specify the constraints using
>       OWL explicitly, but this might also be done in the future or as a Note.
>       - It appears natural that constraints such as the author proposes
>       will be needed to apply constraints to PROV-O documents directly, but this
>       is outside the scope of the specifications.
>    - References:
>    - Changes to the document:
>       - None
>    - Original author's acknowledgement:
>
>
>
>   On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> wrote:
>
>  PROV-ISSUE-556 (time-qualification): public comment: should qualfied and
> unqualified versions the same [prov-dm-constraints]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/556
>
> Raised by: Paul Groth
> On product: prov-dm-constraints
>
> This is a public comment: see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0002.htmlfor full details
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 14:11:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:20 UTC