Fwd: Contributions and Supersedes

Do we all get these comments? Or just the chairs? 

Interesting comments by the way..,

Paul


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
> From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
> Date: December 14, 2011 19:33:01 GMT+01:00
> To: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: Contributions and Supersedes
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am the author of the AliBaba auditing ontology[1] and I would like to
> seem more relationships from Activities defined in the POV ontology.
> 
> 
> prov:generated rdfs:domain prov:Activity; rdfs:range prov:Entity.
> 
> An inverse of prov:wasGeneratedBy would be very useful in cases when the
> activity itself has a stronger identity than the entity created. Such a
> case would be when the entity produced is not identified by a URI.
> Perhaps the entity produced is a triple or a set of triples (g-snap)
> without an explicit identifier. Such a relationship would also allow
> someone using Linked Data to follow their nose between activities and
> the entities their produced.
> 
> 
> prov:contributedTo rdfs:domain prov:Activity; rdfs:range prov:Entity.
> 
> In some cases it may not be possible (or desirable) to uniquely identify
> every entity revision. Instead a single entity may actually have been
> generated, in part, by multiple activities over time. In this case it
> may be desirable to have a relationships that is weaker than
> prov:generated and allows multiple contributions.
> 
> 
> prov:supersedes rdfs:domain prov:Activity; rdfs:range prov:Activity.
> 
> The prov:wasDerivedFrom is useful to link new versions of an entity to
> its predecessor, however, it would be equally useful to link their
> activities together as well. A sub property of prov:wasInformedBy that
> implies this activity makes an entity, generated from this another
> activity, obsolete.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> James
> 
> [1] http://www.openrdf.org/doc/alibaba/2.0-beta14/owldocs/auditing-ontology.html
> 
>