- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:07:09 +0200
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi All, I just got back from a nice holiday and have been catching up on email. One thing I wanted to comment on was the idea of encoding the constraints in owl. I'm happy for someone to do this but personally I think we should treat it as "implementation" of the constraints - just like I will implement the constraints as sparql. In particular, I'm worried about the bandwidth of the group as a whole. There are a number of documents that need to be done and we also need to start the work of responding to comments for our core documents. I know there is a feeling in the group that this would be good to do but I wanted to start a conversation about whether this should be done here or not. Thanks, Paul -- -- 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 - The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 16:07:37 UTC