Satya, Khalid, and Stian From our notes last week, a point was raised that is not discussed in the current draft: ... Stian: some domains are "doubled" one for RL and one for non-RL. ... Khalid: why are we defining the superclasses in addition to the union. ... Tim: hadActivity has two domains: Influence and (Delegation or Derivation or Start) --- Note that the latter is a subclass of the former--- Should we include this consideration? If so, can Stian and Khalid provide some perspective so that Satya can revise the paragraph? Thanks, Tim [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-07-09#Satya [2] http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#prov-o-owl-profile On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > I'm closing this issue pending review. > Any +1 or feedback welcome. > > The result is at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#prov-o-owl-profile > > Regards, > Tim > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > >> prov-o team, >> >> Can I get someone to take the lead on this? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> On May 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-377 (rl-plus-plus-justify): All RL "violations" justified appendix [PROV-O HTML] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/377 >>> >>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>> On product: PROV-O HTML >>> >>> All RL violations reported by http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#JAR_checker must be described in an appendix in the PROV-O HTML. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 18:36:18 UTC