Re: PROV-O ontology comments

Hi Simon,
Thanks for the feedback! I have tried to address some your comments in
updated owl file, responses are interleaved:

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello PROV-O team,
>
> Here's my quick review of the PROV-O ontology, as requested last telecon.
>
> In general, it seems fine.
>
> It seems odd that hadLocation has a domain of owl:Thing. So what is
> it's connection to provenance?
>
> We discussed this during our call and the consensus was that anything can
have a location. We will be happy to define a domain after additional
clarification from WG/DM.


> What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain
> (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything, then
> what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an
> arbitrary non-prov RDF statement? What is its connection to
> provenance?
>
> Similar to the Location, we discussed this and need additional
clarification from WG/DM.


> The old W3C 2006 Time namespace is still used/included. Is use of this
> ontology to be removed in the next revision?
>
> Thanks! I have removed it from inXSDDateTime datatype property.



> I notice that comments (at least for adoptedPlan) still refer to
> ProcessExecution.
>
> Yes, I have removed them.

Thanks again!

Best,
Satya


> Thanks,
> Simon
>
> --
> Dr Simon Miles
> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> Efficient Multi-Granularity Service Composition:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1396/
>
>