Re: PROV-ISSUE-438 (prov-n-post-f2f3-review ): Final review before last call vote [prov-n] from Stian Soiland-Reyes on 2012-07-09 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from July 2012)

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:25:55 +0100
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkBk6Xt3p4cOXVe+_7FxBrejS_Nvhf0KZ1XNfK_NOFzwg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> * memberOf -> hasMember
> Should it be hadMember?

Either, I proposed both in the long text..

Someone (I don't remember who) protested on the past tense in this
kind of situation, as it sounds like they are not members anymore.

Perhaps it should be equivalent to 'specialization of' - just 'members'?

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 08:26:46 UTC