- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:52:33 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim But what about sub typing of alternateOf? Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include >> an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy, >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html >> we have added them. > > -1 leans towards bloat > >> >> I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and vice-versa. > > I agree. > >> >> As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations. > > The subtyping can be placed onto your Note(id,[prov:type = "my subtype"). > This would let you reuse the same hadAnnotation relation. > > -Tim > > >> You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes for IVPof. >> This could also be encoded with attributes. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> On 02/14/2012 09:18 AM, James Cheney wrote: >>> While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity. >>> >>> I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense. If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of. >>> >>> I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML. >>> >>> --James >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:53:12 UTC