- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:53:32 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Ivan, On 07/08/2012 14:38, Ivan Herman wrote: > Ok. I misunderstood the original mail which I read by setting out to describe the_full_ PROV-Constraints in OWL. If the idea is to add those statements that are easy or relatively easy, then I am fine with that (the usage of property chains is another example that is already used...). > > But I would actually add then one more constraint: we should not lead the ontology further away from OWL-RL. It is unfortunate that we are already out of it a bit, but if we make the situation worse, we would loose a major constituency... And I do not think it is worth it. Yes, what I have in mind is to have this constraint-rich prov-o in a separate ontology file. But this is still up to discussions on the return of the prov-o team. So does the choice between spin, rules, and other options. But it's good to have early feedback! Cheers, Jun
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:53:56 UTC