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

Re: Prov-o call on Monday 12:00noon US ET

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:09:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmcyLpYN-kRsq_zKZHOpepMwqKqj_DCBa41sH3WtVuYxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:51, Daniel Garijo
<dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> which is assumedBy some entity. You would have a unique instance of
> EntityInRole for each PE the same way that you
> would need a unique instance of "Usage" in the other approach. In fact, both
> approaches are very similar in the end
> (introducing a new class to model the n-ary relationships), but we thought
> this one was more clear.

Can we put a constraint that EntityInRole can only be used in only one
PE, or wasGeneratedBy only one PE or only one PE wasControlledBy the
EntityInRole? I don't think we can't put such a constraint into the
OWL file without affecting the OWL profile, but we can put it in the

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 09:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:03 UTC