Re: hadMember and wasInfluencedBy

Hi James

We explicitly agreed that membership was not a subtype of influence (or derivation) and would also remain binary.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

> On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:41, "James Cheney" <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was just working on something involving PROV-O and noticed that the ontology makes hadMember a subproperty of wasInfluencedBy.  However, the constraints and semantics do not include this constraint/inference (see Inference 15 
> I can't find any email or issues regarding this.  Was taking hadMember to be a subproperty of influence an intentional decision at some point (that I missed in writing the constraints)?
> I think it may affect validity.  If hadMember is an influence then it cannot be part of a strict cycle of influences (i.e. one that includes a derivation step).  
> If so, is this something that needs to be fixed at some point (and is there a way to make a note of this for future reference)?
> --James
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 06:41:51 UTC