W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-prov@w3.org > March 2012

Fwd: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:14:58 -0500
To: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
Message-Id: <BAA51F51-D93C-45DC-998B-90DDDF8991BE@rpi.edu>
rdf 1.1 wg,

Could I get some help addressing how a potential inconsistency is handled across named graphs?

-------
:account_1 {
    :entity a prov:Entity
}

:account_2 {
    :entity a prov:Activity
}

prov:Entity owl:disjointWith prov:Activity .
-------


Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Tim Lebo


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: March 5, 2012 5:04:54 PM EST
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Yes, this seems to be aligned with prov-dm.
> 
> Can you explain me how an axiom like this should be interpreted
> if we have accounts/named graph.
> 
> In acc1,
>  :a a Entity
> 
> in acc2,
>   :a a Activity
> 
> Is the axiom holding within a given account/named graph, but not necessarily across?
> 
> Thanks,
> Luc
> 
> On 05/03/12 13:59, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm<->  prov-o]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/291
>> 
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: mapping prov-dm<->  prov-o
>> 
>> Should:
>> 
>> Entity owl:disjointWith Activity ?
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 22:15:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 March 2012 22:15:28 GMT