- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:30:24 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Not necessarily *need* - the namespace could contain names not used in the Data Model. But you might find it neater to do that. I think there's a trade-off here between reducing the number of namespaces used in the RDF and each namespace having a clear(er) scope. #g -- On 20/10/2011 14:10, Paul Groth wrote: > I think it's as you suggest. We may need extra namespace for anything that's not > in the datamodel. > > cheers > Paul > > > Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> 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? > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:47:11 UTC