- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:29:51 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Actually, you're right. It doesn't define a namespace in terms of urls. Paul Graham Klyne wrote: > Is there any particular reason that PROV-DM needs to define a namespace URI? > > Doesn't the material there all stand on the abstract syntax model, which doesn't > depend on URI-based namespaces? > > Just asking. > > #g > -- > > > On 20/10/2011 14:38, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 14:10, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>> I think it's as you suggest. We may need extra namespace for anything that's >>> not in the datamodel. >> W3 guys - is it OK to delay deciding on this until after we've made >> the first public draft of the ontology? >> >> >> Should we have aliases in PROV-O for the matching ones? How would >> users remember/know which term is from which namespace? >> >> # Example of aliasing >> @prefix prov http://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ . >> @prefix provo http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/ . >> # .. >> >> provo:Entity owl:sameAs prov:Entity . >> provo:ProcessExecution owl:sameAs prov:ProcessExecution . >> # ... >> >> prov:Entity a owl:Class . >> prov:ProcessExecution a owl:Class . >> # .. >> >> # only in provo: >> provo:EntityInRole a owl:Class ; >> rdfs:subPropertyOf provo:Entity . >> >> > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 14:33:03 UTC