- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:20:30 -0800
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Dave, Thank you for carrying these questions forward and based on the responses I'm beginning to realize why you wanted to keep relationships in a non-normative description. If the knowledge being conveyed is provenance-centric: e.g. lineage of scientific results are being described org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization might sense describing how the organization acted or an agent acted on behalf of an organization. On the other hand if the knowledge being conveyed is organization-centric: e.g. the history of a organization prov:Organization could be argued be a rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization depending on what is being conveyed. Others might want to make assertions differently and dynamically depending on the context of the question. I am voting to support your original perspective on the matter by keeping this non-normative. Eric On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/02/13 14:59, Ghislain Atemezing wrote: >> >> Hi Dave, >> Thanks for all the explanation! >>> >>> If there is some problem with that then by stating the weaker: >>> >>> org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization . >> >> >> +1 for having this weaker statement. > > > As people will have seen, the suggestion from Paul is that in fact the > generalization is the other way round: > > prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization . > > I'm happy go along with this view. > > The question is then whether this weaker statement is appropriate to add to > the ontology and spec at this stage or whether we should leave it to a > future informative note (perhaps from a future WG). > > Any views on this? Eric, since you originally noted this issue, any > arguments either way? > > Dave > >
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 10:20:58 UTC