- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:16:31 -0500
- 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.
e.g.
:a
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.
-Tim
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 22:17:06 UTC