- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:42:38 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I've added a brief summary - mainly a placeholder. #g -- On 10/07/2012 17:41, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > 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. >
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 17:43:18 UTC