- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 14:04:38 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 09:14, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > ex:correct prov:qualifiedAssociation [ > a Association ; > prov:agent ex:edith ; > prov:hadPlan ex:corrections > ] . > > it is strange to see prov:hasPlan, why not simply prov:plan (and similarly > for other hadXXX properties). Because we had a WG resolution ages ago that we would use verbs in past tense for edges. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-01#resolution_2 We've ignored this rule for prov:agent/entity/activity as they are really a kind of rdf:object for the reified triple. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#4._Naming_style_for_prov:entity_prov:activity_prov:agent_is_RESERVED One of the reason for this is that earlier we had some involvements (like prov:Derivation) that had both entities and activities, and it was unclear which of those properties was the 'real' involvement that we were qualifying. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 13:05:32 UTC