- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:01:18 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, Khalid: As a reminder, we said at the F2F that we shouldn't spend too much time on constructs that we are know are under flux. I think RecordContainer falls in to that category. By the way: really nice work. It "reads" a lot more consistently now. From my point of view, I like the consistency and parralism in the class hierarchy and property hierarchy. e.g. prov:involvment property and prov:Involvment class. I also like the fact that there's only one qualified property. cheers, Paul Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > >> Hi Khalid! >> >> 2012/2/21 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk >> <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>> >> >> >> Bundle: This construct does not exist in prov-dm W3. We need to >> replace it by RecordContainer, or Container. >> >> I think we should leave Bundle. Why add RecordContainer if we are >> going to replace it in the next version? > > +1 We know how it's going to change, so we can relax the "we're doing > WD3 now" constraint. > > -Tim > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 17:04:21 UTC