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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-442 (prov-o-html-term-coverage): Identify prov.owl terms that can be omitted in prov.html [PROV-O HTML]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:28:15 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7C957775-39D3-4703-B76B-A39FCB5E2BD0@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
This issue has been overcome by the "OWL union" response when resolving the PROV namespace, and the AQ terms were removed from prov-o.owl.

I am closing it.

-Tim

On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 
>> The three you identify seem reasonable not to mention in the narrative.
>> 
>> It also seems to me that you don't have to cover every qualified
>> class/predicate because the pattern applies.
> 
> Thanks, Paul. Thankfully, the pattern will save some write time ;-)
> 
> Other comments welcome. I'll post new terms in question on this ISSUE.
> 
> Thanks!
> Tim
> 
>> 
>> cheers
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-442 (prov-o-html-term-coverage): Identify prov.owl terms that can be omitted in prov.html [PROV-O HTML]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>> 
>>> The prov-o team is currently reviewing the prov.html for the discussion's coverage of the prov.owl terms.
>>> 
>>> For the sake of brevity, it may be reasonable that some terms in prov.owl be omitted, since they can be self-explanatory or are ancillary. If the term is not discussed explicitly in narrative, it already exists in the cross reference, has an example there, and had commenting in the OWL file itself. So, omitting a term from narrative is not ignoring its existence.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This ISSUE is to identify which terms the WG is willing to omit from HTML discussion for these reasons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For starters, is it reasonable to omit ActivityInfluence, AgentInfluence, and EntityInfluence from the narrative?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> 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
>> VU University Amsterdam
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 15:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 15:28:55 GMT