Re: prov namespace management proposals

Sounds good.

Do you have a paq.owl somewhere, or should I put my slice into http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/paq ?

Thanks,
Tim

On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> I think it is. There seems to be a number of decent options.
> 
> So go for it.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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 20:27:58 UTC