- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:57:48 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, Note: I think qualifiedXXX is *inverse* functional. Hence, I don't think that #5 follows from this. Luc ________________________________________ From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:50 PM To: Luc Moreau Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML] Luc, On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi prov-o team, > … > > 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional? > Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a qualified Influence > for multiple subjects. This is not intended. > > The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional before, but I think > this characteristic was incorrectly removed. > > … > > 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en > > --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional. > > Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, endedAtTime, > > This does not seem to be separate from your #2. Does changing qualifiedGeneration to function resolve your #5? Also, does prov:generatedAtTime's functionality come from prov-constraints or prov-dm? Thanks, Tim > Cheers, > Luc > > > On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: PROV-O HTML >> >> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release. >> >> The document is at: >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html >> >> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to the following questions: >> >> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done). >> >> >> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate? >> >> >> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference? >> >> Regards, >> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team . >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 13:58:44 UTC