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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-560: type overlap question [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:08:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpXchuPs9APYeX9YgUM9LstPwt0B=HErtp=D87YTWz5Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

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.



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)
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC