- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:08:03 +0200
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Just a response on this one, I think constraints should be there for provenance purposes. Does the constraint help me make "better" provenance? Obviously, we will always allow this overlap in the DM, so does adding a constraint here help something. My tendency is to not add more constraints if they are not fundamental. This does not seem to be a fundamental thing. cheers Paul On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-560: type overlap question [prov-dm-constraints] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/560 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm-constraints > > > It's clear that an activity cannot be an entity. > > It's also clear that an agent may be an entity (or an activity). > > Given this, can a prov:Person be a prov:Collection? Currently, this is permitted. > > We have not explicitly considered type overlap impossibility for subtypes of Entity and Agent. > > > -- -- 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 Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:08:35 UTC