Re: PROV-ISSUE-84 (namespace-for-properties): What should namespace for properties be? [Formal Model]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 15:59, Satya Sahoo <> wrote:

> That is an error - I have updated the example on the repository with "po"
> namespaces for the "isGeneratedBy", "isControlledBy", "isDerivedFrom", and
> "Used".

Should po: then also be used in most of the properties of

>>I was hoping to see <po:isGeneratedBy> (and similarly for other relations)
>> so that the resulting >RDF is intelligible by applications that are not owl
>> aware.
> I did not understand this point - applications that process RDF
> representation but are not "OWL aware"?

I guess Luc assumed that the Crime File authors had subclassed
properties like po:isGeneratedBy - anyone receiving their instances
would then need to perform OWL reasoning over the crime ontology to
recognize these specialised properties. Ideally our OWL ontology
should be usable "out of the box" also as a vocabulary for "plain

But this raises a question - if someone *does* create such
subproperties and use those, which would be perfectly fine by OWL -
would they then be in any way 'lesser' compliant, or would their
representation have to somewhat be classified as OWL RDF instead of
just RDF?

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 10:48:25 UTC