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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-554 (time-qualification): public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same [prov-dm-constraints]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:29:43 +0100
Message-Id: <DEFF6477-B3B1-4F91-90E2-EF75C25ACCB4@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

I don't understand the summary of the issue. The original question seemed (to me) to not be about qualification at all, but about whether PROV-CONSTRAINTS ensures that the two different ways of giving the start time of an activity match.  It already does this for PROV-DM (via constraints 29 and 30).

For PROV-O, since we have not specified anything about how PROV-DM maps to PROV-O or vice versa, I don't see anything that needs to change here.  If we were to specify how PROV-CONSTRAINTS mapped to OWL, then we would want to ensure that the translation of the constraints 29 and 30 gives the expected inference, but I believe we just resolved not to specify that.

This issue seems to have been raised three times accidentally (555 and 556 are identical); perhaps the duplicates can be closed.

--James

On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-554 (time-qualification): public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same [prov-dm-constraints]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/554
> 
> 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.html for full details
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 09:30:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 09:30:18 GMT