- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:34:36 +0200
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian, It would be good to start collecting reviewer responses, maybe under an issue. Regards Paul On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 > -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 13:35:09 UTC