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: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:39:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbcbOTNQDbwhGZmpNobyLpEaYpz12C977OX1mFCDzVYSsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
 Indeed, I think we should make clear in the response that the constraints
are defined over PROV-DM, not PROV-O or any other specific implementation.
If one were to implement a validator for PROV-O, the suggested constraints
would be used for the qualified relations.

- Tom

2012/9/18 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

> Hi James,
>
> Sorry I may have misunderstood the question but if we can write a
> clear response that would be good.
>
> Also, apologies for the extra issues, my computer did some crazy
> things when I was making the issue last night. I'll close them.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > 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.htmlfor full details
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:39:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:39:48 GMT