On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi Luc, > Comments are interleaved: >> >>> So I don't think we want to replace hadQualifiedUsage with hadActivity going in the reverse direction. >>> >>> proposal: Raise against PROV-O to discuss whether to introduce a hadActivity property linking QualifiedInvolvements to Activities. >> >> If proposed, I say -1 >> > > I don't think the notion of 'principal' should be absolute. It depends on what you are doing with the provenance, > and this is left to users. > > > Again, the current construct in owl file is "Usage (class) ->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> Activity (class). It's the other way around: Activity (class). ->hadQualifiedUsage (property) -> "Usage (class)" > > Can you please clarify if you are suggesting that we introduce a new property called hadActivity that is just an inverse of hasQualifiedUsage (and does not capture any additional information)? > -Tim
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 03:42:12 UTC