Re: PROV-ISSUE-339 (dgarijo): Domain of "activity" property [Ontology]

Oops, sorry, I got it wrong.
This issue is about prov:hadActivity (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadActivity
).
The domain is just prov:Derivation, and prov:Responsability should be
included in order
to be able to link the proper Activity.
Since that doesn't seem to be possible with RL, then we'll have to relax
the domain
(maybe to prov:Involvement?).

Thanks for your answer,
Daniel

2012/4/9 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Hi, Daniel.
>
> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> > PROV-ISSUE-339 (dgarijo): Domain of "activity" property [Ontology]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/339
> >
> > Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> > On product: Ontology
> >
> > The domain of "activity" property
>
> ^^^ Do you have a URI of this property?
>
> > is currently "ActivityInvolvement". However when we qualify a
> Responsability we also associate an activity with prov:activity.
>
> No, that is not what prov:activity is for.
> We use prov:hadActivity, which needs its domain to be relaxed from just a
> Derivation to include Responsibility.
>
> > We should relax the domain and allow "AgentInvolvement" as well.
>
> No, that violates the Involvement pattern, which reserves prov:activity to
> refer to ONLY the object of the reified unqualified triple.
> The pattern also says to use the hadX properties to reference ancillary
> resources in an N-ary relation.
>
> -Tim
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>