- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:41:02 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > 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. Could you write this as another solution? It would certainly be less messy, as those additional terms would not generally show up as anything in ontology tools (if anything they would be 'individuals'). It would not be sufficient for Dictionary which needs to be done as an PROV-O extension, but there could be a third property owl:isDefinedBy (?) to a separate dictionary.owl. It would be like a variant of 2.1. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 16:41:52 UTC