- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:56:07 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paul, Given these proposals, is it safe to slice out PAQ from PROV-O. I can move the terms into a paq.owl and save it away for later use by the Note. Thanks, Tim On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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 19:56:55 UTC