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

Re: Qualified Involvements proposal

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:36:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0Ddmx9n8zX2au8W3MeMu4diZjcDu4Qsb=fbnOd-yxwOerw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,
we also discussed propety chains that would inferr the unqualified
relationships,
but we decided to address the possible issues with the approach before going
too far with the inference.

So the answer is yes, they can be inferred.

Best,
Daniel

2011/11/7 Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

> Hi Tim, all:
>
> This is a really nice proposal. I think very consistent and seems fairly
> easy to explain.
>
> I was wondering if one has to assert unqualified involvement or can that
> be inferred from the qualified involvement pattern?
>
> cheers,
> Paul
>
>
>
> Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
>> prov-wg,
>>
>> The following link reflects the OWL group's discussions from the past
>> week about replacing EntityInRole with qualified involvements.
>>
>> Please have a read.
>>
>> If you'd like to join our Monday noon US ET (we switched our clocks
>> today) skype discussions, please let me and Satya know.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_**PROV-O<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim Lebo
>>
>
> --
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 12:37:24 UTC

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