Re: PROV-ISSUE-442 (prov-o-html-term-coverage): Identify prov.owl terms that can be omitted in prov.html [PROV-O HTML]

The three you identify seem reasonable not to mention in the narrative.

It also seems to me that you don't have to cover every qualified
class/predicate because the pattern applies.

cheers
Paul

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-442 (prov-o-html-term-coverage): Identify prov.owl terms that can be omitted in prov.html [PROV-O HTML]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/442
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: PROV-O HTML
>
> The prov-o team is currently reviewing the prov.html for the discussion's coverage of the prov.owl terms.
>
> For the sake of brevity, it may be reasonable that some terms in prov.owl be omitted, since they can be self-explanatory or are ancillary. If the term is not discussed explicitly in narrative, it already exists in the cross reference, has an example there, and had commenting in the OWL file itself. So, omitting a term from narrative is not ignoring its existence.
>
>
>
> This ISSUE is to identify which terms the WG is willing to omit from HTML discussion for these reasons.
>
>
>
> For starters, is it reasonable to omit ActivityInfluence, AgentInfluence, and EntityInfluence from the narrative?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 08:42:53 UTC