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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:14:38 -0600
Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4DDB8BFF-8626-4A8A-B8C3-088408D88FF0@ihmc.us>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Regrets for this week. I will be at risk for making the call and if I manage to make it will in any case be rather late. I have to give a presentation at a meeting in New Orleans. Sorry I didn't see this coming earlier. 

Pat


On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:38 PM, David Wood wrote:

> This is worth discussing as a group as it relates to the islands and other named graph discussions.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> Resent-From: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
>> From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
>> Subject: Fwd: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]
>> Date: March 5, 2012 17:14:58 EST
>> To: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
>> 
>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 05:15:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT