Re: reviewer feedback on prov-o ontology

Hi Jim,
I didn't say it was a bug. I said it was not aligned.

It's a feature, maybe, but that's not expressible in prov-dm, which means
that other implementations e.g. java, xml, or whatever would not 
understand that feature.

So, from an ontological viewpoint, a nice feature, but one that does not 
help with
interoperability.

Luc

On 02/23/2012 02:21 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Furthermore, the ontology allows for instances of involvements to
>     be expressed, without
>     specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not
>     aligned with the data model.
>
>
> This is a feature, not a bug. Even if Involvement were defined as 
> equivalent to the union of subclasses, it would still be possible (and 
> consistent) to assert that something is an Involvement without saying 
> what the subclass is. We simply wouldn't know.
>
> Jim
> -- 
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu

-- 
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