W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:16:31 -0500
Message-Id: <883407B2-C090-49AC-B0AD-5D6A33320100@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> -3.2.xxx  hasQualifiedXXX
>    do we really need to make the term qualified explicit

The occurrence of "qualified" was more natural when the property was named as it was in the original proposal.


    a prov:Activity;

    prov:used :input;
    prov:qualifiedUsage [
       a prov:Usage;
       prov:qualifiedEntity   :input;
       prov:hadRole         io:input;

For some reason, the verb "qualified" (as in, "This activity qualified how this Entity was used") was not considered acceptable for the predicate name.

The "had" renaming was not a group decision.

I'm keeping my objections on the back burner in hopes of making progress on the actual modeling.

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 22:17:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC