- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:45:41 +0000
- To: "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: "pgroth@gmail.com" <pgroth@gmail.com>, Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>, W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
I know there is some effort of using PROV in ISO standard work for ISO TC276, I've looked briefly through the draft "ISO-TC276-WG5-PWI-Provenance-Part1" which showed it using PROV-O as basis for class extensions just like below, for making distributed health informatics specific provenance. Not sure if this is related to BFO though.. On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 20:48:04 +0000, "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > prov:Entity rdfs:subClassOf bfo:Continuant . > prov:Activity rdfs:subClassOf bfo:Occurrent . > > Done. > > 😉 > > From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, 9 December, 2019 07:42 > To: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com> > Cc: W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org> > Subject: Re: PROV-O and BFO > > Hi Nick, > > Not that I've heard off. Would be interesting to hear otherwise. > > Paul > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:33 PM Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com<mailto:nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>> wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it true that there is a potential revision of PROV-O being considered to better align with BFO, the Basic Formal Ontology? I have heard this claimed by BFO authors, presumably as a result of recent work to establish BFO as an ISO standard. > > Thanks, > > Nick Non-text part: text/html
Received on Monday, 9 December 2019 16:45:48 UTC