- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:09:35 -0400
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
James, Luc, We have a small collection of errata and OWL tweaks to make, but I haven’t had the time to design and set up the change control process. If you’d like to write up the errata statement, I’m sure Ivan can get it into the errata document. But I’m afraid I’ll be holding up the OWL change until I can get to it in late August. Regards, Tim On Jul 23, 2014, at 5:27 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > Good, that's what I thought but I could not find an issue discussing this. I just found the discussion you refer to: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-12#Collection_membership > > The related resolution about hadMember is a little ambiguous, but it seems clear from context that the intent was that hadMember not be considered a type of influence. Following Ivan's response, I guess this means a short erratum for prov-o (and maybe a fix to the actual owl file)? > > --James > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 14:09:44 UTC