Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]

Luc,


On Jul 9, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Note: I think qualifiedXXX is *inverse* functional.
> 
> Hence, I don't think that #5 follows from this.

You're right. I'm sorry.

Then, can you elaborate #5? I don't understand the issue.

Thanks,
Tim

> 
> 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 14:04:43 UTC