- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:39:05 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham, I think people are worried about knowing the provenance of those terms as they will be defined in different owl files. The prov-o team does not want to include terms from other notes in the prov-o owl. Paul On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Paul, > > I'm still not understanding the problem that arises if all terms from all > documents are included in one OWL file, where the PROV-AQ terms (and others?) > are simply described with an rdfs:label and rdfs:comment value, and nothing more. > > #g > -- > > On 10/07/2012 11:09, Paul Groth wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I put together a page around namespace management with the two >> proposed approaches to resolving ISSUE-440. >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvNamespaceManagement >> >> Please feel free to comment and add anything you think I'm missing. >> >> Thanks >> Paul >> >> >> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 15:39:33 UTC