Re: prov namespace management proposals

I added a prov:used to the inverses.owl from prov-o appendix.

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvNamespaceManagement#Solution_2.2_Use_owl:import_and_return_full_merge_of_PROV-O_and_all_Notes

<> a owl:Ontology ;
   prov:wasGeneratedBy :merge2012-12-16;
   prov:hadPrimarySource <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120799/ProvenanceOntology.owl>;
.

:merge2012-12-16
   prov:used <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/prov-20121231.owl>,
             <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/inverses-20121231.owl>,
             <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/prov-aq.owl>,
             <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-collections/prov-collections.owl>;
   prov:qualifiedAssociation :mergeAssociation2012-12-16;
.
:mergeAssociation2012-12-16
   a prov:Association;
   prov:hadPlan <#RDFGraphMerge>;
.
<#RDFGraphMerge>
   a prov:Plan;
   rdfs:label "RDF Graph Merge";
   foaf:page <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/>;
   dcterms:description [
      prov:value "A merge of a set of RDF graphs is defined as follows. If the graphs in the set have no blank nodes in common, then the union of the graphs is a merge; if they do share blank nodes, then it is the union of a set of graphs that is obtained by replacing the graphs in the set by equivalent graphs that share no blank nodes.";
      prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/>;
   ]
.



-Tim

On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> nope. just stick it into the repository
> 
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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
> 
>