- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:21:18 -0500
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Paolo, On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:39 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > Hi, > >>> How do you propose doing this? >> Would the one triple >> >> :e1 prov:wasComplementOf :e2 . >> >> work? This would stand independent of what account the entities are in -- which gets to the point I was making that the asserter needs to make distinct URIs and not depend on some account-based scoping mechanism to establish its identity. > I thought this was based on the assumption that e1, e2 are not necessarily unique URIs across the space of defined accounts Does the following example reflect "e1, e2 are not necessarily unique URIs across the space of defined accounts" ? Following http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_components design, I created: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/7ef37443dc30/ontology/components/Account/different-accounts-can-include-the-same-entity.ttl Which has two "Accounts" that mention the same Entity: <http://example.org/id/entity/2> > , hence the need to add scope information explicitly. "adding scope explicitly" is done by putting it into a named graph (or multiple named graphs). Does that work? Again, what does "scope" mean? Are we talking about set membership between Entities/Assertions and Accounts? I would very much like to see a more detailed definition of "scoped". > > if URIs are unique, then all is needed is a separate table that maps each URI to the account it belongs to That's what a named graph does. I'm continuing to misinterpret "scoped" as a denoting construct and NOT as a means to "slice and dice" different subsets of an RDF graph into different overlapping sets. Thanks, Tim
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 16:21:59 UTC