- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:59:10 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:13, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > I agree absolutely here. I would like to see one URL for the major concepts > in the data model. It's weird to have two "official" urls. > > I wonder how we can do this? > Can we not just have /ns/prov ? I would prefer that as well - but what about other potential serialisations like "pure XML" which have been mentioned? Or the implication of some of the PROV-O constraints like domain and range vs. what is stated in PROV-DM? If needed we can have ns/prov-o for "additional" concepts which are not in PROV-DM, like EntityInRole - but then that would mean two prefixes in the RDF, say prov: and provo: Perhaps the OPM guys could help by enlightening us on how you did this with OPM-V (vocabulary) vs. OPM-O (ontology). I believe that OPM-O reuses the OPM-V concepts where it can.. right? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:00:00 UTC