- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:28:02 +0000
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- CC: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Hi Eric, On 28/02/13 10:20, Eric Stephan wrote: > 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. It was a perfectly reasonable question for you to raise though. > 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. Not sure I fully agree with that line of argument. To me classes describe things that are intrinsic to the entities. So I'm not sure the class depend on what kind of information is being conveyed in a particular provenance statement. I think we basically have: - any organization is an org:Organization - some organizations can act as Agents in provenance Activities and those are also prov:Organization So I think Paul's (prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization) is correct. Whether one could go further and say that any organization *could* act as the responsible Agent in a provenance Activity and so in fact the two are equivalent class is still open in my mind. > I am voting to support your original perspective on the matter by > keeping this non-normative. That's fine by me. We have the email trail to point to if the question is raised in the future and the option of a future clarifying Note (perhaps from some successor working group). So if no one objects I think we can close ISSUE-58 with no change. Dave > 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 12:28:32 UTC