- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:59:04 +0000
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 14:59:30 UTC
Jun You can just use derivation for that, right? something to that effect is stated in DM sec.6.8: " In general, all assertions reflect the asserter's partial knowledge of a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which the asserter/knows/that some of the state changes may have been missed, then the more genericwasDerivedFromrelation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be precisely asserted as insertions or removals." does that address your point? --Paolo On 2/23/12 2:47 PM, Jun Zhao wrote: > Hi guys, > > What if people don't have key-value pair for their collection structure? > Instead, they just want to simply express that one entity is contained > by another, like what we have in the Provenance Vocabulary: > > A prv:containedBy B . > > Can we express that in prov-o? > > I don't need to express what element was deleted or inserted. I just > want to express a containment and derivation relationship. > > Can I do that? > > Cheers, > > -- Jun
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 14:59:30 UTC