- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:22:53 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org Group" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, all I think it is not desirable to express such a form of involvement. The class Involvement is introduced, as far as I understand, as a way of structuring the ontology. I don't think it should become a construct of the DM. So I see this class as "abstract" in OO terminology. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:09, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> However super-properties and super-classes make it look like you can >> use them directly. It now looks like you can say: >> >> :entity1 prov:qualified [ >> a prov:EntityInvolvement; >> prov:entity :entity2; >> prov:hadTemporalExtent :t . >> ] . >> >> - but this is a half-baked statement where you don't know if we're >> talking about derivation, attribution or quotation. All you can >> conclude is :entity1 prov:involved :entity2. Perhaps that's a useful >> statement in a few applications, but for most parts it would be silly. > > > > Do you see this as a show stopper? I don't think it is. > > -tim >
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 07:26:02 UTC