- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:14:04 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hi Tim, I went ahead and closed this issue. I still think there needs to be sparqling done to see how "nice" the ontology is but I'll try it out and raise this as a separate issue if it comes up. cheers Paul On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > Paul, > > I agree with Khalid that the new OWL-RL focus has eliminated the need to address any "PROV-O and Vanilla RDF" discussions, since they are one in the same. > > Can you provide specific concerns that remain in this particular ssue? > > Or please consider closing this and opening a new issue related to your "PROV-O should be easy to SPARQL" point that you've recently raised. > > Thanks, > Tim > > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > >> Hi Khalid, >> >> I would prefer to leave this issue open as a check when the next version of the ontology comes out. This is not just about owl-rl but how the whole thing looks in things like sparql. >> >> I'm sure it will be resolved but I want it as a reminder to check. >> >> cheers >> Paul >> >> Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> Given that we decided to adopt OWL-RL, which is a (subset) profile of >>> OWL. Would you be happy if we close this issue? >>> >>> Thanks, khalid >>> >>> On 06/10/2011 10:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> PROV-ISSUE-119 (vanilla-rdf): How does vanilla RDF work with PROV Ontology [Formal Model] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/119 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Paul Groth >>>> On product: Formal Model >>>> >>>> The Provenance Ontology uses OWL for a number of reasons. However, we agreed at the last F2F that it was a good idea for adoption that that OWL be easy to use in "vanilla RDF" or developer friendly RDF. >>>> >>>> I was wondering if we could either add a section or another document that shows how some examples look in such vanilla rdf. Essentially, what can I do if I don't know anything about reasoning or even class hierarchies. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> > -- -- 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 Monday, 16 April 2012 15:19:15 UTC