- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:02:16 -0500
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stephan, I had this in but Stian took it out. OWL-RL: why bother with OWL :-/ -Tim On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > If we break OWL-RL compatibility, we can add an owl:allValuesFrom restriction that prov:entity refer to an prov:Agent when the subject is a prov:Usage. > > prov:Usage > rdfs:sublClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; > owl:allValuesFrom prov:Agent ; > owl:onProperty prov:entity > ] . > > --Stephan > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-262 (qualifier-property): entity used entity? [Ontology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: Ontology >> >> >> I am not sure, but it looks like we can write >> >> :e2 prov:qualified [a Usage >> prov:entity :e1] >> >> and >> >> :a2 prov:qualified [a Usage >> prov:entity :e1] >> >> where e2 and a2 are entity and activity respectively. >> >> It seems that the domain of qualified is any element, so it can beany activity or entity. This allows any Involvement to be linked with any Element, which is contrary to the table at the beginning of section 4.2 in the prov-dm draft. >> >> Over the week-end there was a discussion of simplifying hadQualifiedUsage property into something more readable. My suggestion was hadUsage, or even usage. This would avoid this type of problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 04:03:23 UTC