- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@smiy.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:28:35 +0200
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi all, btw how about dct:source [1] or dct:publisher [2] as source (is derived from) property? Cheers, Bo [1] http://purl.org/dc/terms/source [2] http://purl.org/dc/terms/publisher On 08/08/2012 02:33 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > Hi Jun, > > almost perfect! prov:hadPrimarySource is a tiny bit too strong (it > requires that source is from first-hand direct experience etc.), > whereas its superproperty prov:wasDerivedFrom is a bit too weak, but > can be used here. > > So if there was a prov:hadSource between these two, I would gladly use > it, not having the strong requirements for the source. > Otherwise I will settle for prov:wasDerivedFrom for now. > > Thank you again, that helped a lot! > > Cheers, > Denny > > > 2012/8/8 Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>: >> Hi Denny, >> >> >> On 08/08/2012 13:05, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >>> >>> Every statement has an IRI. And the source will also have an IRI >>> describing it (i.e. an IRI for the statistical yearbook, an IRI for >>> the mentioned paper). >> >> >> By this, do you really specially asking for a property to express that a >> statement about an entity is derived from a certain primary source? >> >> How about the http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadPrimarySource? >> >> Note that there are some renaming going on around this property. If you want >> to use more than the above property, such as prov:source or >> prov:qualifiedSource, then please ping us before you do so. >> >> HTH, >> >> Jun >> >> >>> >>> What I did not figure out is: which property from the provenance >>> ontology can I use to connect the statement IRI to the source IRI? >> >> >> -- >> Jun Zhao, PhD >> EPSRC Postdoctoral Fellow >> Department of Zoology >> University of Oxford >> Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road >> Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:29:13 UTC