- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:28:37 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Yes, correct, they should NOT be functional. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:16, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > Luc, > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Tim >> >> If wasGeneratedBy is not functional , why is wasGeneratedAt functional? >> >> Indeed, we could have multiple qualified generations, and therefore multiple generation times. >> (note this is all scruffy provenance) > > Yes. So you're recommending that generatedAtTime NOT be functional? > This is where I was heading by asking whether this was a prov-dm characteristics or prov-constriants. > > If you think it should NOT be functional based on DM, then I agree. > > Thanks, > Tim > > >> >> Luc >> >> >> ____________________________________ >> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu] >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:03 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 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 14:29:48 UTC