Re: prov:supersededBy missing? (was Re: PROVO-O in QUDT)

Ralph,

I forgot to mention, have you looked at PROV's invalidation?

http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#invalidated
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120724/Overview.html#term-Invalidation

It carries some of the "no longer valid" notion that you describe.

Regards,
Tim Lebo



On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:08 PM, "Ralph TQ [Gmail]" <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:

> Paul,
> 
> I think the semantics of 'supersededBy' are different to 'wasRevisionOf'. When something is superseded it no longer should be referred to. Whereas when something is a revision of something else all versions my still be valid. We see this in many document-centric environments. For example at NASA, a specification for telemetry and commanding of vehicles existed in a number of concurrently valid revisions (REV A, REV B, etc.).  Each revision having justification in specific contexts-of-use. Moreover 'supersedes' and 'supersededBy' are very commonly used at W3C.
> 
> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
> 
> Mobile Phone: +1 781-789-1664
> 
> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
> 
> Blog: Voyages of the Semantic Enterprise
> 
> Newspapers: SPARQL, SemanticWeb, LinkedData
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ralph,
>> 
>> Would wasRevisionOf be of use? We do not have supersedes.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> When a unit in QUDT is superseded by another we use a property, voag:supersededBy, from the VOAG ontology.  I could not find a corresponding property in the PROV ontology.
>> 
>> Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq
>> 
>> CTO, TopQuadrant, @TopQuadrant
>> 
>> Blog: Voyages of the Semantic Enterprise
>> 
>> Newspapers: SPARQL, SemanticWeb, LinkedData
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>