- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:41:16 +0000
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
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" <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#influence-inference). > > 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