Re: PROV-ISSUE-338: explain prov:agent vs. prov:hadPlan naming convention [PROV-O HTML]

See ISSUE-348 for a listing of current PROV-O naming conventions (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Apr/0201.html), but here is pretty much the same content for prov:activity vs prov:hadActivity (most interesting example) in my own words.

Properties from an Involvement or one of its subclasses that reference the the object of the equivalent unqualified relation are lowercase of the domain class - i.e. activity, agent, entity, dictionary.  These properties are all sub-properties of prov:involvee.  The property prov:activity has as its domain prov:ActivityInvolvement and would not be used with non-ActivityInvolvement qualifications.

Properties from an Involvement or one of its subclasses that do not reference the object of the equivalent unqualified relation utilize the prov:hadXXX naming convention where XXX is generally the class in the range of the property.  For example, prov:hadActivity has a domain the union of Derivation, Invalidation, and Responsibility.

This is the current naming conventions for hadXxx vs xxx to the best of my knowledge.  I would reference the PROV-O documentation, as I think we reference the naming convention in the latest draft, but the hosting server appears to be down right now. :-(

--Stephan

On Apr 9, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-338: explain prov:agent vs. prov:hadPlan naming convention [PROV-O HTML]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/338
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: PROV-O HTML
> 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/EMEW3|2c084c78f3361c61dff318d0c8aad9d6o339EE08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F7C02D3.7090705@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> 
> Hi prov-o team,
> 
> Just one more thoughts that came up when reading the primer.
> 
> Looking at the following snippet:
> 
> 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).
> 
> Cheers,
> Luc
> 
> 
> 
>