- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:33:47 +0100
- To: pgroth@gmail.com
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi, I wonder if this issue from 2017 is still outstanding as I just got an email: > we detected an issue with prov-o:wasRevisionOf when it is loaded into Protégé and found your post > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2017May/0000.html where you describe > the reason. > > Unfortunately, this issue blocks the proper derivation of wasInfluencedBy information in our showcase. > Since we hesitate to make up our own branch of a corrected revision in order to conform PROV-O, > we wonder why this issue was not yet resolved. Are there any plans to publish a revision of PROV-O? Paul/Ivan, can we try to push out the previous update of prov-o.ttl etc on w3.org? On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:54:46 +0200, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote: > We may not need to record a change in the erratta but I think more > visibility the better. > > @Stian - thank you for raising it on these lists. > > I would also like to double check the changes to see if it's all in working > order before any changes to the official ontologies. > > > Paul > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 12 May 2017, at 16:47, Stian Soiland-Reyes < > > soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:41:45 +0200, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > >> However… I am a little bit uneasy. First of all, it must be recorded > > >> in the errata, that is for sure. But I would also prefer to see some > > >> record of wide consensus that this is indeed what has to be done (and > > >> record the consensus in the relevant erratum) before changing the > > >> ontology files, because we are, essentially, creating a discrepancy > > >> between the standard and the ttl files. > > > > > > I disagree on the need for the errata as it would not cause any > > > discrepancy with the standard (which doesn't even distinguish between > > > Object Properties or Annotatoin Properties). > > > > If that is indeed the case, then I agree with you. > > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > > I do agree we could check wider if we're correct in my suggested > > > approach, so we don't do any double-trouble or break something else. > > > > > > I'll raise it on the semantic-web list and OWLAPI list. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Stian Soiland-Reyes > > > The University of Manchester > > > http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/ > > > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > > > > > > > > > ---- > > Ivan Herman, W3C > > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > > mobile: +31-641044153 > > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > > > > > Non-text part: text/html
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2020 16:34:04 UTC